The Wire Recap: Season 5, Episode 8, “Clarifications”

In “Clarifications”, one of the most seismic events of The Wire’s entire run—you know what I’m talking about—is treated surprisingly casually and accorded less build-up than the deaths of a zillion other characters over the years. Perhaps more than any other incident this season, the death of Omar calls attention to the delicate balancing act David Simon has assigned himself.

Other HBO series that have been allowed to run their full course—Six Feet Under and The Sopranos—also generally featured season-long story arcs, but theirs were customarily looser than those on The Wire, making it easier for creators to provide closure on several seasons of continuity while simultaneously wrapping up the business at hand. The extent to which the fake serial killer plot has polarized The Wire’s fan base suggests that even if Simon has a satisfying ending to the current story up his sleeve, some fans will complain that he didn’t pay enough attention to resolving the big picture. On the other hand, if the final two episodes dwell heavily on tying up loose ends and escorting characters to their final fates while ending the current story arc in a somewhat perfunctory manner, half the audience could walk away feeling as if they’d spent a whole season having their chains jerked.

When commentators compared The Wire to fiction, they often pick the sprawling, society-spanning novels of Charles Dickens and Anthony Trollope as their reference points. But the technique of giving each season its own theme has a more immediate antecedent, series crime fiction, and it may be useful to look at The Wire through that lens. The shift in tone between Season Five and its predecessors has attracted a lot of criticism, but such shifts are fairly common between volumes of, say, Ed McBain’s 87th Precinct mysteries (where the vibe could be more serious or less depending on which regular cast served as a given book’s protagonist) or George Pelecanos’ Dimitri Karras/Marcus Clay novels, where the atmosphere fluctuated depending on the year the novel was set and how old the characters were at the time (this is also the case with Walter Moseley’s Easy Rawlins mysteries). Of course, none of the above examples have as much inter-series continuity as The Wire. Simon may not be venturing into unexplored territory as The Wire closes, but he is trying to do the sort of alpha/omega reconciliation that can make or break the reputation of a writer—or a series.

“Clarifications” is concerned first and foremost with resolving the story at hand, and at that level it’s surely one of the season’s best episodes. But there are also lots of character florishes that subtly point toward the series’s ultimate resolution, making it an episode worth reappraising after we see how everything finally plays out.

Despite the earnest intentions behind McNulty’s scam, he’s often appeared to be having the time of his life as he manufactures evidence and dupes his bosses. This week, however, the chickens come home to roost. So far, we’ve mostly seen him dealing with peers and subordinates during his investigation, never having to deal with anyone who ranks higher than Jay Landsman, who has never seemed terribly concerned with the particulars of murders as long as the clearance rate is high enough to keep him out of trouble. As the episode begins, McNulty is being grilled by the full departmental brass, including Rawls and Daniels, and it’s soon clear the heat may be more than he can take. “I’m all for a little kinky shit every now and then…”, says Rawls, whose colleagues might not laugh so hard at the wisecrack if they knew of the bars he frequents. Rawls is an asshole no matter how you slice it, but the scene also reminds us that he’s a damn good cop and, potentially, a more effective commissioner than Daniels might be. Baltimore’s black power brokers would balk at a white commissioner, we’ve been told more than once, but incumbency is a strong weapon, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see him hold onto the job as the series ends—though of course it all depends on how and when he learns the truth about McNulty, and what he chooses to do about it.

The frustration that Dukie displayed when asking Cutty how to escape his situation has solidified into rigid determination, as we learn when we see him doggedly looking for work. Dukie’s visit to a sneaker store leads to the return of a familiar face: Bodie’s old running mate Poot, who claims to have gone straight because he just got tired of life on the corners (he conveniently neglects to mention that he’s done time in Jessup since his last appearance). Poot says he’d like to help Dukie but couldn’t hire him even if there was an opening because he’s just too young for the job, then hilariously suggests that Dukie resume slinging rock until he’s old enough for legit employment. That might deter a lesser kid, but Dukie keeps forging on until he gets what could be the lowest-level gig in town, helping an old-school junkman who collects scrap metal in a horse-drawn cart. As we saw with the end of Season Three and with Namond’s fate at the end of Season Four, Simon isn’t above handing out happy endings when he feels like it, and I sure as heck hope Dukie survives Episode 60 with his dignity intact—if not, his perseverance could end up seeming an exercise in audience manipulation rather than an example of a determination we would all do well to emulate.

It’s been fascinating to see (and attempt to predict) how various characters respond to McNulty’s ruse when they learn the truth about it. I was sure he was going to spill the beans to Carver when he approaches him at the Western for help getting the manpower Lester needs to go after Marlo. Certainly, Carver is among those I’d expect to react the most negatively to the hoax. If the ruse ends the careers of McNulty, Freamon and others (as seems very likely), at least there’s a competent crop of successors waiting in the wings. We’ve already seen Carver display strong leadership this season, but it was a treat to see Syndor in action as a field general. He’s clearly turning into the cop that Lester could have been if he hadn’t been exiled to the pawn show division for all those years. In any event, given the well-documented parallels between Kima and McNulty, I didn’t expect her to react quite so vehemently to the truth, though I suppose her famous diligence should have tipped me off. Lester’s indulgence counts for a lot, but with Bunk, Kima and Beadie all lined up against him, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see McNulty pull the plug on his scam early in the next episode and then spend the remainder of the series trying to get the genie back in the bottle.

Tommy Carcetti is usually portrayed as a pretty sharp guy, but it was colossally stupid of him to only visit white politicians in Prince George’s County, and even dumber of Norman Wilson to have let him do so: According to Wikipedia, the population of PG County was 62.7% African-American as of 2005, and with a percentage like that you can be sure that black folks have been the dominant ethnic group there for many years now. It’s a mistake that would have been inconceivable in real life but which makes sense as a plot device to force Carcetti into bed with Clay Davis and Nerese Campbell. The payoff is one of my favorite Wire moments ever: Carcetti telling Davis, “It scares me to think what damage you could do with two votes on the liquor board.” Davis laughs his ass off in response, but the mayor obviously wasn’t kidding.

I’m going to skip over the issue of the intriguing scene in which Lester Freamon blackmails Davis—as well as, basically, everything that goes down at the Sun—because so much of it is setup for the last two episodes and is relatively hard to evaluate independently. This leaves us, of course, with the most discussion-worthy element of the episode, the death of Omar Little. There are many thematic ways to interpret his unglamorous death, including the possibility that it’s a critique, a la David Chase, of audience bloodlust. I don’t think that’s the case: For all its grit, The Wire has always been much more inclined than The Sopranos to give viewers what they want. As noted in this comments thread, his death evokes the killings of Jesse James and “Wild” Bill Hickok in ways that speak to the underlying nature of the entire series.

At first, I was a little annoyed that Omar’s death slipped through the cracks at the Sun in the same way that the killings of Prop Joe and Hungry Man did—yeah, I thought, we get it, the point’s been made: the folks at the Sun, even Gus, have no clue what’s really happening in Baltimore. Upon further reflection, this made me realize something interesting: Simon admirably resisted the temptation to add a stand-in for himself to the fictional Sun staff—if he had, there would have been a reporter who knew full well what Omar’s death meant (in the behind-the-scenes book The Wire: Truth Be Told, Simon described the struggle he experienced when he fought his bosses—successfully—to be allowed to publish an obituary for the real-life Bubbles). The episode ends with a curious scene in which the medical examiner switches the tag on Omar’s body with that of another corpse (which sort of looks like it could be the body of prosecutor Gary DiPasquale). The scene plays as if the ME isn’t quite sure that the body is Omar’s and is trying to verify his ID somehow; as I pointed out in a comment predating this recap, the tag clearly gives Omar’s age as 47, a flat-out impossibility that contradicts the statement earlier in the episode that he’s supposed to be 34. It could just have been a production goof (one exacerbated by how long the director let the shot linger), but I couldn’t help thinking about what deeper meaning there could be to the authorities having contradictory info about Omar on file.

The first thing that came to mind is the possibility that the contradiction is supposed to indicate Omar’s metamorphosis from a man into a legend, a transformation made obvious long ago when we saw kids arguing for the right to “be” him in their game of cops and robbers (or vigilantes and dealers, rather). We haven’t seen much evidence yet of Prop Joe undergoing a similar transformation, but it’s not hard to see it happening if Marlo’s business strategies inspire nostalgia for a more peaceful time. Over the course of The Wire’s run, as we’ve seen the destructive effects of “progress” on the urban middle class in all manner of ways, the series has been described by many as a eulogy for a dying way of life.

But what Simon could be doing—which sounds very similar but isn’t quite the same thing—is illustrating the process by which the present becomes history and history becomes myth. Much as the culture of the camp on Deadwood is so different from our own as to make that series sometimes seem like it took place on another planet rather than merely in another time period, the Baltimore of 2002-08 is going to seem so different to the Marylanders of 2064 as to appear legitimately alien. Calling The Wire an elegy implies that the passage of everything it depicts is worthy of mourning, and that’s clearly not the case. Simon’s brand of storytelling is so close up that this might take a few years to become apparent, but The Wire just might be the equivalent of a series that, by focusing on forgotten people and mundane events, illustrates how the decadent prerevolutionary French state began turning into the unrecognizable industrial nation that it had become by the end of the 20th century.

Slant is reaching more readers than ever before, but advertising revenue across the Internet is falling fast, hitting independently owned and operated publications like ours the hardest. We’ve watched many of our fellow media sites fall by the way side in recent years, but we’re determined to stick around.

We’ve never asked our readers for financial support before, and we’re committed to keeping our content free and accessible—meaning no paywalls or subscription fees. If you like what we do, however, please consider becoming a Slant patron.

It's not the biggest topic of discussion, but I'm disappointed to see a small consensus declaring Carcetti becoming "corrupt" or "just in it to see himself on CNN." Christopher Lehman wrote an essay for Washington Monthly a few years back that argued that American political narratives fall too easily into the progression from innocence or purity into corruption, and he champions "one truly great modern American political novel, Billy Lee Brammer's 1961 The Gay Place", in which politicians "reflect openly about the shabby compromises and disappointments they spring on themselves as they imagine they are doing good."

I think that Carcetti's narrative is somewhere between this kind of worldliness and the cliched path of temptation. Carcetti is motivated by his own political career, to be sure, but I don't think Simon faults him for that; his learning to do business with Clay Davis is portrayed as necessary, while Clay is the one who's corrupt. For Simon, it seems inevitable that the institutions of politics will eventually crush the individual's desire to do good--but by its own perverse incentives and self-perpetuating customs, not by the seduction of the pure.Posted by Wrongshore on 2008-03-06 09:16:00

That is a great catch. If anybody's interested in seeing the image Hayden describes, here's the opening sequence of The Wild Bunch via YouTube.Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2008-02-26 21:37:00

Building on the Wire/Wild Bunch crossover, my friend Austin just emailed me that he saw the kids gathered around Kenard pouring lighter fluid on the cat as analogous to the kids at the beginning of the Wild Bunch with the scorpions and ants. He said he knew Omar was going to buy the farm right then.

I think the scorpions and ants had greater resonance to the story in the Wild Bunch, but man, you gotta hand it to him. That was a great catch.Posted by Hayden Childs on 2008-02-26 20:31:00

Whoops, of course I meant to say "Andrew, Matt, everybody..." Andrew, your recaps are excellent.Posted by Ziggy on 2008-02-26 18:29:00

Matt, everybody, just wanted to say thanks for this great conversation. Being a Wire fan can be tough when you need to pore through the rich minutiae of the show and not enough people physically around you actually watch the damn thing. The thoughtfulness of this dialogue is re-assuring from a societal perspective.

I have nothing to add other than: in the Newsweek link posted earlier, I love David Simon's assertion that the fake serial killer lie is nowhere near as confounding as the Iraq war and the media's complacency about reporting it at first. How sad is it that he is basically right about that, but it does make me excited for how Simon/Burns will handle Generation Kill.Posted by Ziggy on 2008-02-26 16:09:00

Proposition Ayn wrote:

I know I'm a week late to the party here, but MZS wrote "McNulty's ludicrous scheme is ultimately in the service of letting the police do real police work." I disagree.

McNulty's scheme is ultimately in the service of accomplishing real police work while aggrandizing himself (see: seasons 1, 2...). Just as Carcetti's "I'm just in it to help the people" is about seeing himself on CNN.Posted by Anonymous on 2008-02-26 15:47:00

i just got around to watching the episode last night. unfortunately, i had read about omar's death beforehand which ruined the surprise for me.

while these recaps are always quite good, i am a little confused about the comments on the ME and omar. i think, mr. johnston, you are looking way to deep into the tag switch and the age, as are everyone who has commented with similar confusing. (i apologize if this has been mentioned already, but i cannot read through all previous comments).

the ME swapped the tags because he saw he felt it unlikely that an older white man was named omar and a black name was named whatever was on the tag. it is likely that the white man was 47 and someone in the ME's office simply put the wrong name on the wrong tag and attached it to the wrong body. nothing more than that.

if anything it just hammers home the indifference of the Sun and the police (especially mcnaulty) to omar's death.

-msPosted by Anonymous on 2008-02-26 15:31:00

Ross Ruediger said... "I don't watch "The Wire", so I've got nothing to add to the conversation. But I wanted to say that I'm blown away by 100 posts for a recap of an episode of a TV show! Most impressive."

The Wire doesn't have the largest audience, but it does have a ferociously dedicated one.

Nomi Lubin said... "I'm not sorry to hear someone else react emotionally to the death of a "loved one."

I'm okay with Omar's death. Sorry to see him go, of course, but I don't feel "cheated" by it. I'd been expecting it ever since Bunk chewed him out for setting a bad example. (I actually thought for a while that Simon & Co. might be bold enough to off him in season four, but I guess they needed him to hang around until the final season.) After that great confrontation between Bunk and Omar, I felt Omar was living on borrowed time. He died the way he lived, gunned down by one of the kids he "inspired". It makes perfect dramatic and thematic sense.Posted by hng on 2008-02-26 12:00:00

Matt: "The messy romanticism of the show is the reason I like it the best out of those three great series--aborted run, dead-end subplots and all. I felt as though David Milch had a spiritual sensibility, a really deep humanistic love for each and every character that passed in front of his camera, even the horribly twisted and evil ones, if only because he saw their unrealized potential. There were times on 'Deadwood' where I felt as though I could see a sort of energy field around certain characters--their life force, their soul."

Yes.Posted by Nomi Lubin on 2008-02-26 09:41:00

RE: Chris' look.

I took Chris' look to mean he didn't want to go to Atlantic City with Marlo, and would rather go back to the people he was talking about with Snoop while he was throwing the knife into the floor.

I am not sure why Freamon is going to blackmail Davis, but find myself coming around to cover for when the homeless killer stuff breaks. Interesting that Davis does not know that the federal prosecutor is not interested in Davis' case.

Great comments all around about the show and art. You always learn something at the House Next Door.Posted by Old on 2008-02-26 07:51:00

Nomi: "I'm sure there are Wire fans here who see Deadwood as fantasyland compared to The Wire."

Not me. "Deadwood" was as low-down nasty and funny as "The Wire" or "The Sopranos." The messy romanticism of the show is the reason I like it the best out of those three great series--aborted run, dead-end subplots and all. I felt as though David Milch had a spiritual sensibility, a really deep humanistic love for each and every character that passed in front of his camera, even the horribly twisted and evil ones, if only because he saw their unrealized potential. There were times on "Deadwood" where I felt as though I could see a sort of energy field around certain characters--their life force, their soul. I sometimes get that from watching "The Wire" and "The Sopranos" but not as consistently as I did when watching "Deadwood."

I know that to have this argument is, in some sense, to argue the merits of "Goodfellas" vs. "McCabe and Mrs. Miller" vs. Sidney Lumet's urban corruption films. It's apples and oranges and pears. But it's fun.Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2008-02-26 05:24:00

Anonymous:

I'm not sorry to hear someone else react emotionally to the death of a "loved one." I hate that little sociopath too.

As far as anger toward the makers of the show for the way it happened--well, as you can see from my other posts, I share some of that too.

Forgive me for grabbing for Deadwood yet again--it's the paradigm for me of all things good and right in serialized television, so I can't help it: In Deadwood none of the heartbreaking deaths ever left me wishing I'd never been engaged in the story or the lives of the characters.

I'm sure there are Wire fans here who see Deadwood as fantasyland compared to The Wire. I'd agree that there is a strong element of romanticism in Deadwood, dark messy romanticism, but romanticism nonetheless. But I don't think that makes it any more or less "realistic" than The Wire.

I don't know. Maybe I'm arguing with shadows here . . . I guess I'm just saying that feeling to some degree "had" by this show is not unreasonable. And I don't mean that in sense that no reaction is unreasonable: I mean there is something in the world view of this story that triggers this response in some people.Posted by Nomi Lubin on 2008-02-26 02:24:00

sorry Irrational*Posted by Anonymous on 2008-02-25 22:35:00

I'm speaking with my emotions and not attempting to overanalyze anything. Just like many people right now I am in shock. Just like if someone's loved one dies, you're not going to try and explain to them the way of life. I know this is "just a show" but people have feelings rational and unrational and are entitled to them both.Posted by Anonymous on 2008-02-25 22:34:00

Ed Copeland's piece on Omar, from Sept. 4, 2006, fantasizes about another Omar-Brother Mouzone meeting, but then says Simon and company are too smart to permit that sort of indulgence. Presciently, he concludes, "In the world of The Wire, it's the story that rules--and that may even get the great Omar in the end."Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2008-02-25 21:50:00

All I know is I hate that kid and I have since the minute he became a somewhat significant role on the show. As disturbing as it was seeing a little kid get messed up, when Michael did it I had really been waiting for someone to shut him up. I think the way this went down is a joke. I even debated for a while whether I was willing to watch the rest of the show or not. The only reason I could find is that up until this season every minute has been worth it.Posted by Anonymous on 2008-02-25 21:39:00

I don't know if it's been posted here already (I tried to scan all the comments but there's just too many), but someone over at another blog figured out the following (which David Simon confirmed):

In season 3, after the big stash house raid/shootout, Bunk sees some kids in the street playing at 'being' Omar. It's for this reason that he gets Omar to promise not to kill anymore - to stop the kids emulating him. The kid in S3 who grabs the stick and shouts 'My turn to be Omar' was Kenard.Posted by Anonymous on 2008-02-25 13:23:00

My cable carrier has no On Demand. There's little I can add at this point besides a heartfelt "Sheeeeeeeeee-it".

Oh, and Matt: I'll email you tomorrow about that snowglobe. I hope you have one with snow falling on Omar in his wheelchair, being carried up the stairs into Avon's stash house, somewhere near the Poe House.Posted by Hayden Childs on 2008-02-25 05:43:00

Andrew and Matt: HBO On Demand? What's that? I mean, is anyone actually paying for this stuff? I just tap my dealer and he delivers. No questions asked by or of me. Shee- it!

Then - BenPosted by Ben Livant on 2008-02-24 01:11:00

Just realised something - a lot has been made of the police informer that Prop Joe had - Bunk has gone to get the warrant, but has held up on serving it.

If Marlo has inherited the informer, then he's going to be well ahead of Bunk and Chris, and looking to solve the problem.

and perhaps the solution is Michael. Would fit with the young replacing the old, though probably not resolve that way.Posted by James McG on 2008-02-24 00:48:00

Andrew: I don't know if more people are watching it via On Demand--but certainly a lot of "Wire"-heads are. I agree that we should have done it this way from the start. Frankly it's probably just a matter of my only starting to watch the episodes via On Demand this season. It's like that beat reporter's cliche--I don't remember if it was quoted on "The Wire" this season or not--that news is defined as whatever happens to your editors.Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2008-02-23 21:09:00

Damn, this is some great conversing going on around here. It kind of makes me wish that you fellas had been following the On Demand schedule from the get-go. It's hard to have a deep conversation about an episode when most have already seen the next one.Posted by Andrew on 2008-02-23 20:32:00

Ross: In all truthfulness, I tend to stray (way) off topic, so the achievement here is not entirely on task. Nevertheless, we are attempting to beat Alan Sepinwall's crew into the Guinness Book. (Don't tell Matt. It's supposed to be a surprise.) Many thanks for your contribution.

Patrick: I really like and agree with your observation about Hamsterdam. A few posts back I referred to Bunny Colvin as a "pragmatic socialist" and I stand by this with respect to what he wanted to do. However, I concede that him being able to do it, even for a while before getting shut down, this was completely unrealistic; indeed, pretty close to utopian socialism.

As for how certain seasons of The Wire will be ranked in retrospect, well, I kinda suspect Ross was teasing us about taking a TV show this seriously now.

Matt and Nomi: For your benefit, I reproduce the following item from the local newspaper. Cheers.

"If you're suffering from insomnia, I've found the perfect cure: the longest movie ever made, aptly titled, The Cure For Insomnia. This is an 87-hour-long epic which features a poet reading his 5,000-page poem spliced with some footage of heavy metal and some porn. But if that's too long for you, try The Longest Most Meaningful Movie In The World, which clocks in at 48 hours and consists entirely of newsreel and stock footage. Rounding out the top-five list of insomnia-curing films are China's The Burning Of The Red Lotus (27 hours), Sweden's The Journey (14.5 hours) and Russia's War And Peace (eight hours)."

Ben's personal best in one sitting: Bela Tarr's Satantango (7.5 hours). Hey, here's a proposal for Five For The Day: The Longest Goddamn Movie You're Ever Seen.

Then - BenPosted by Ben Livant on 2008-02-23 19:46:00

I'd actually agree that it's more the dramatic requirements of the show than its internal reality-ometer than meant Omar couldn't kill Marlo, that desire to not repeat the Stringer Bell storyline. I'd argue the moment Omar's death became inevitable was when he popped Savino, right after that, I was like "he's going to die," but I do still think they could have made the storyline go a different way and still have it be satisfying, perhaps even more so.

I think the whole issue of realism and implausibility in this season is magnified by the fact that so many people are paying attention, and that the show is so lauded for its realism. If that's what you're selling, people will be less accepting of things out of the norm than they were back in the Hamsterdam days. I'll be curious to see how this season is perceived in retrospect, once people absorb it not as "the new season," but as another piece of the five season arc.

I seriously doubt that it will rank with years three and four for the majority of viewers, but I do think some of the complaints about the serial killer stuff will vanish when the episodes are viewed in closer succession. I don't think it'll be hailed as the show's best days, but the show is just as addictive as ever, I'm dreading that two week break between episode nine and ten.Posted by Patrick on 2008-02-23 07:11:00

I don't watch "The Wire", so I've got nothing to add to the conversation. But I wanted to say that I'm blown away by 100 posts for a recap of an episode of a TV show! Most impressive.Posted by Ross Ruediger on 2008-02-23 07:03:00

Matt: I could never settle for just one syllable to serve as my last word because a syllable is not necessarily a word and I am verbose... which is the opposite of taciturn... which reminds me of an anecdote starring the 30th president of the United States, Calvin Coolidge, a notoriously curt man.

So Coolidge is at a cocktail party minding his own business when he is approached by a couple of giggling adolescent girls, one of whom brashly says:

"Oh Mr.Coolidge, Mr. President, sir, I just bet my friend that I can get you to say at least three words."

To which he replies: "You lose."

Then - BenPosted by Ben Livant on 2008-02-23 05:36:00

Ben: "Besides, I always seem to get into this conversation when I visit."

Yep. And that's why I love it when you visit.

Now you should probably add something, even if it's just a syllable, so that you do in fact get the last word.Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2008-02-23 03:46:00

I think the whole clock thing is cool. Most of the main characters have their backs against the wall regarding time itself. Can McNulty and crew nail Marlo's gang before time runs out on their scam? Can even the writers of "The Wire" itself tye up loose ends with only 2 episodes left?. Tick...Tick...Tick.Posted by Anonymous on 2008-02-23 01:38:00

Patrick: It is always possible to say that something is possible. The issue, then, is whether or not it is probable. And when dealing with fiction, there is the further matter of whether or not it is plausible.

Omar killing Marlo was highly improbable. It's not that the chaos of individual action could never triumph over the control of organized power. This argument does not need to be made at all in this case because in the first place, the opposite thesis is equally inapplicable. It's not as if the control of organized power triumphed over the chaos of individual action. Marlo did not beat Omar. Chris and Snoop were not able to eliminate Omar.

Perhaps it might be thought that Marlo did beat Omar insofar as Kenard is part of Marlo's organization. I would accept this interpretation if Marlo had instructed all of his workers to kill Omar, from his generals to his infantry. But he didn't. Marlo does not even know who killed Omar. Pragmatically he could care less, some little kid, whatever. But the point is that he is reacting to the fact, not determining it. Omar's death is not the result of Marlo's control.

Indeed, Omar's death is the result of the chaos of individual action upon the individual himself. This is to say that he self-destructed. Simply put, his revenge obsession did him in. The death of Butchie turned what had hitherto been Omar's virtues into their opposites. His code of conduct inverted upon itself and put him on the homicidal warpath. It also put him constantly in harm's way and ultimately his warpath became effectively suicidal.

Omar killing Marlo would also have been implausible. The reason for this is formal; i.e., having to do with dramatic conventions as they pertain to realism. Omar killed Stringer Bell. (As an aside, I wish to suggest that a large measure of Omar's popularity with the audience is due to us transferring our attachment to the doomed Stringer Bell over to the victorious Omar.) Having killed Stringer Bell, it is implausible within realism to allow Omar to extinguish Marlo as well. To permit this would be to strain the constraints of realism, if not break them outright. An Omar that kills both Stinger Bell and Marlo is a character that could and should be played by Arnold Schwarznegger, if you follow my drift.

Then - BenPosted by Ben Livant on 2008-02-23 01:14:00

Algernon: Can't really disagree with you. I called him an anti-hero, which, though that term is at least as elusive as hero, maybe romanticizes him as well. Love is blind.

Patrick: Yes. Others may argue with you, but I think you make a great point.Posted by Nomi Lubin on 2008-02-23 00:38:00

Insomniacs Unite!Posted by Nomi Lubin on 2008-02-22 23:28:00

it is testament to the dramatic excellence of the program that we ever entertained the possibility of Omar killing Marlow - Jesus, since when is murderous vengeance a good thing? - but it is testament to the serious realism of the show that this could never be.

C'mon, it was certainly a possibility. This is the same show where Omar and Brother Muzone gunned down Stringer amidst a sea of flying pigeons. If Omar had killed Marlo, you'd see the same people saying it was inevitable that the chaos of individual action triumph over the control that Marlo represents.Posted by Patrick on 2008-02-22 22:50:00

Not sure if this went through--sorry about the double-post if it did:

I rooted for Omar as much as anyone, but he's certainly no hero. Everything he's done has been fundamentally selfish. He and his crew rob drug dealers, so the dealers kill Brandon, so Omar tries to kill the dealers. This is a hero? We might feel bad about Brandon, but as Brother Mouzone said when hearing Omar's sob story, "the game is the game." He knew the risks.

In the beginning of season 4 people were throwing Omar packages for free, but that was too boring for him, so he robs Andre's store and says the look on Andre's face is "the reason why we get up on the morning." He's a thrill-seeker. He likes the violence, he likes pulling off the big score, he likes winning.

We like him so much because he's funny, charismatic, brave, loyal to his people--and his he is willing to make his own rules rather than be a cog in an institution. We loved his audacious robberies, his "one man against the world" crusades against the Barksdales and Marlo, and his willingness to go his own way. But there is nothing heroic or noble about the way he chose to go.Posted by Algernon on 2008-02-22 22:32:00

Matt: Spoken like a man who has seen Michael Moore's Sicko, maybe more than once.

For the record, I wasn't putting down hypothetical constructs as such, just yours.

I agree with you that it is time for us to stop this conversation. (Besides, I always seem to get into this conversation when I visit.) I am hoping that your excellent hosting ability will allow you to allow me to have the last word.

Then - BenPosted by Ben Livant on 2008-02-22 22:30:00

Ben:

I don't think a lasting, fundamentally decent revolution is unthinkable or impossible. I do believe, however, that there are precious few examples of it happening. That's not cyncism. It's realism. The hypothetical scenario I employed was only a way to get into the idea that human beings tend to exploit every kind of government to personal advantage, often undoing whatever good was done in the first place.

If not for hypothetical constructs, arguments would be less fun, because we'd be restricted only to what has already, verifiably happened. And if that were the case, a best-case-scenario vision of socialism or communism could not be part of the picture, because that's a hypothetical construct as well.

I don't think you're a closet Stalinist. I'm not a conservative. I'm mostly a liberal, socially and economically; I think the country has turned into even more of a wholly owned subsidiary of corporations than it was in the 20s; I think the country has been strangled economically and culturally by militarism and its hangers-on, and I think we could do with a dose of socialism in this country. (I'm a freelancer, and my family has no health plan right now; my brother, who lives in Switzerland with his wife and daughter, is covered no matter what happens to him. What's so bad about that?)

I am, however, an insomniac.

And I'm dropping out of this thread now--we've wandered far enough afield as is.

Cheers!Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2008-02-22 22:17:00

Matt: This is what happens when I get a day off. You're stuck with me.

Your hypothetical construct - "if the U.S. switched overnight to a socialist or communist government" - is en effective rhetorical technique but is not even valid as a heuristic device, never mind a genuinely historical appreciation of political transformation. It is gross reductionism to make revolutionary reconstruction of society simply a matter of governmental replacement; honestly, sounds a bit like Bush's mania for "regime change" (except his own, of course). Hey, call me totalitarian but our vision has to be bigger than just a new administration. If it isn't, well, we may as well play that Who song one more time: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

Directly related to this, the whole notion of things being "switched overnight" is not realistic from the point of view of both common sense and any sort of radical political agenda. Instead of mechanistically replacing one static model with another, the project is authentically evolutionary, an on-going democratic process of collective self-determination. Conservatives are welcome to dismiss this project as utopian nonsense and I won't deny that there are competing paradigms of what constitutes realism. This just brings us back to the basic fact of the matter that we are engaged in a political struggle.

Matt, maybe I have been misreading you all along - (I worry that you misread me as some sort of closet Stalinist) - but I do not take you to be a conservative. So, what's with the hardball cynicism? You seem to think that the only kind of revolution possible is that of a spinning door through which apparatchiks turn from pig to man and back again. I prefer to regard all of human civilization as a perpetual act of collective praxis in which there are progressive and reactionary tendencies in struggle. To admit that it can be very difficult to sort these out in both theory and practice is to take it for granted that change is possible and the struggle continues.

Or is it just that I went to bed at my bedtime last night whereas you stayed up way too late? Red-baiting me with Orwellian disillusionment - please!

Then - BenPosted by Ben Livant on 2008-02-22 22:04:00

Ben: Citing what you say is a contradiction: "At 1:17 in the morning you say that "social change is a collective phenomenon." By 4:24 AM you state that "the packaging changes but what's inside rarely does."

This isn't a contradiction. Meaningful change is a collective phenomenon; one person can't do it alone. We agree on that. But just because a group of committed people try to effect change doesn't mean they'll accomplish their goal, or that the changes won't be watered down or corrupted and ultimately turn into a slightly re-jiggered version of the status quo. That's the (all too common) scenario I'm alluding to when I say, "the packaging changes but what's inside rarely does"--specifically that if the U.S. switched overnight to a socialist or communist government, there would still be stultifying bureaucracy, rampant corruption and cronyism and a notable gap between the haves (those who have direct access to powerful people and can wrest special deals or favors for themselves as a result) and the have-nots (people without connections). Attempts to eradicate inequity often just shuffle the key players around on the board. "Animal Farm" nailed this quite well. "All animals are equal" became "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

You're right, though. I should have gone to bed earlier.Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2008-02-22 20:27:00

Matt: From the likes of Hercules to your grandfather. This conversation has not simply traveled a long way. It has twisted and turned like a strand of DNA. Compared to your celebration of your grandfather, my recognition of "ordinary people occasionally doing extraordinary things" sounds downright elitist. (Great anecdote about Miles, by the way.)

Look, at this point I reckon we are satisfying Nomi's mandate about only arguing because we agree. Still, I do find your statement that "it's dog eat dog, always has been, always will be" one-sidedly negative about human history in general and the evolution of capitalism in particular. It's dogmatic (sorry) given your politically defeatist liquidation of the status quo and alternatives to it into one sorry pool. At 1:17 in the morning you say that "social change is a collective phenomenon." By 4:24 AM you state that "the packaging changes but what's inside rarely does." I kind of wish you had gone to bed earlier. What's the point of us debating the individual/collective dialectic if the possibility of meaningful social change is discarded as a premise from the get-go? Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water man. You expend considerable energy on the importance of special individuals to motivate and direct collective determination in a political theory of heroism, but for what? History is a stuggle. Even if what has been done so far in the name of class struggle specifically don't impress you much, to be political is to be engaged in history by way of whatever struggle one cares to conceive. But you know, I honestly feel we are on the same page with all of this and our debate is just in the footnotes.

What I do want to clarify, however, is where I think our highjack of the discussion led us astray. We began by addressing the status of FICTIONAL heroes and were almost immediately side-tracked by and became preoccupied with NON-FICTIONAL heroes. I introduced the topic of classical mythology in order precisely to consider fictional heroes in terms of ideology and I continued with this treatment in looking at contemporary culture. What concerned me and still does is the ideological presentation of fictional characters in heroic mythological proportions; the unrealistic, escapist, pacifying and ultimately status quo legitimating "individual." I am criticizing the current stranglehold bourgeois atomism has on our fictional imaginations by way of archetypes invented by ancient ruling classes. (Don't get me started on our non-fictional imaginations!)

I also want to emphasize about my focus on heroism as ideology that this stranglehold of which I speak should be apprehended at a level more abstract than that of personal choice. Matt, your attention to non-fictional heroes rather than fictional heroes aside, your entire orientation has to do with personal choice. Of course, if I willfully identify with Iago rather than Desdemona or Mel Gibson rather than Miles Davis - that's not saying something trivial about me. We are our choices, no doubt. But my focus is on heroic ideology as it is disseminated through cultural artifacts experienced on a broad social scale. The generalized public subtext, as it were.

In case these comments have only served to cloud my case rather than cast light on it, let me make it plain that for me the ideological contest is between mythology and realism. Devotion to realism need not entail a narrow-minded rejection of fantasy in all its rich and worthwhile expressions. Nor should pure artistic formalism be derided as necessarily anti-realist when it might be neutrally non-realist. What is ultimately at stake here is the idealist content of mythology; all bogus diversions from realism that are - yup - the opiate of the masses.

And now back to our program. Which means back to you Nomi. You write:

"But, to me, Omar, as he had been established throughout the previous four seasons, at the moment of discovering Butchie's murder, could have just as credibly gone in another direction; he could have chosen not to respond. I believe it could have been written that way without destroying the integrity of the character."

Thank you for answering my question. At the risk of making you not want to argue with me anymore, I have to disagree with you. As much as we all relate to a Robin Hood figure - (Robin Hood, now THERE'S one of my heroes!) - Omar is just too - here it comes again - individualistic to be such a figure. In the first place, it's not as if he redistributes the wealth he steals. In the second place, the man's murder count is just too freakin' high. In the third and probably most important place, he is not a leader. If his execution by Kenard demonstrates anything, it shows that Omar was a role model for nothing but the likes of Kenard. Indeed, I believe seeds were planted over the course of The Wire's five seasons to substantiate this claim by way of textual reference, although I am not enough of a Wire scholar to do so.

All of this is to repeat that it is testament to the dramatic excellence of the program that we ever entertained the possibility of Omar killing Marlow - Jesus, since when is murderous vengeance a good thing? - but it is testament to the serious realism of the show that this could never be. For all his righteous dignity and tremendous charisma, Omar is a self-employed mercenary. Those who live by the sword, die by the sword.

In a recent interview I'll bet most of us have read, Michael Williams speculates on the reasons for Omar's popularity. One of first thing he offers is that Omar is not a snitch. True dat. But he has this option because he is not a drug addict. Nomi, if you're looking for a character who hints of hope, who looks to be turning a corner, who might actually survive - and now I use this word in the deeply positive way Matt did - Bubbles is the man. HNG recommended you stop watching the show because everyone is going down and he lists this. I notice Bubbles did not make it on to that list.

Then - BenPosted by Ben Livant on 2008-02-22 18:32:00

Ben: No fair calling me out for failing to recognize how definitions bleed into each other, then calling me out again for letting possible definitions of a "hero" bleed into each other. That's sort of saying it's OK when you do it, but not when I do it.

Due respect back: Many of your posts seem to assume that I'm in favor of ascribing leaders or significant cultural figures or just decent people some kind of mythological dimension. I don't do that, I'm not in favor of it, and I wouldn't recommend anyone else do it, either. As to your point that the definitions can blur in a democracy, the the powerful's advantage, well, yeah, absolutely--"The Wire" has served up plenty of press conferences during its run that inflate bravery or concoct significance where there is none, always in the name of kissing the asses of powerful individuals under the guise of buttressing the moral authority of the state. The show's hip to that scam, and I'd like to think that anyone who's stuck with it all these years is hip to it, too.

I don't have any naive faith in democracy, such as it's practiced in this country, or capitalism, such as it's practiced in this country, or anywhere. It's dog eat dog, always has been, always will be. Alternative systems--variants of communism/socialism--produce inequities of power and money as well, and in societies that were often positioned as a principled alternative to life in these United States. The packaging changes but what's inside rarely does. Like I said earlier, show "The Wire" to a 1950s Soviet bureaucrat and he'd recognize pretty much every situation and find it quite amusing and astute.

Also: "Turning to the type of individuals you personally regard as heroes, well shucks man, I can dig it. But I hope you will not be offended when I propose that such artistic bohemians are the favorite fruit of petit-bourgeois cultural critics in the intelligentsia."

I won't be offended if you're willing to believe me when I tell you that look up to many people, and few of them are famous or rich.

I've been busting out a lot of my favorite jazz albums recently ("Sketches of Spain" is playing as I write this) so Miles was the artistic figure that just happened to spring to mind. And if Miles is still a go-to name for anyone, anywhere, American popular culture is doing a smidge better than I feared.

Hero number one, for all time, is my grandfather, the eldest of seven siblings in a family of German farmers that settled in Rich Hill, Missouri. He was not the sort of guy who would end up in Who's Who; in fact I doubt he'd even qualify for a job selling copies of Who's Who. Because his own father, by all accounts a controlling, depressive drunk, had forbidden any of his children to read, for fear they'd try to leave the farm and deprive him of free labor, my grandfather traded apple jack to a boy who lived across the property line in exchange for newspapers and lessons in reading them. He doted on my grandmother for half a century, worked at the same sheet music store for 25 years, had a fine collection of old magazines and newspapers, built birdhouses and kites and furniture, and was an exceptional gardener. It's my grandfather who provided this blog with its title. He was an honest man who was considerate of other people. He smelled like topsoil and Old Spice, ate sardines and mustard out of roll-top tins, slept on the wood floor of his bedroom with no pillows or blankets, wore long underwear with a flap in the butt, and gardened while wearing striped coveralls and wingtip shoes with holes in the soles. I don't believe in God or an afterlife, but when I think about my grandfather, I understand the concept of having a moral and spiritual obligation to strive toward a state of grace even though you know full well you'll always fall short of it. He's first in my pantheon of role models. Everybody else is a distant third.

Sentimental enough for you?

I'll close with my own Miles anecdote. My father, a jazz pianist, was friends with a drummer who graduated from the Berklee School of Music in the early 50s and was fortunate enough to luck into a gig playing with Miles Davis in Boston. His very first night, this drummer, who went by the nickname Jimmy Z, got so excited that when the time came to take his first solo during the band's first number, he couldn't stop. He must have played for four minutes. He was so lost in his own adrenaline that he didn't notice Miles glaring at him, then making the throat-cut motion to get the guy to stop.

Finally, Miles very casually walked over to Jimmy Z onstage, stood right next to him, ostentatiously took a cigarette pack out of his jacket pocket, put a cig in his mouth, patted every available pocket of his clothing for a match or lighter, then tapped Jimmy Z, who was still soloing, on the shoulder and growled, "Hey, man--got a light?"Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2008-02-22 09:24:00

Matt: For what it is worth, previously and elsewhere I acknowledged my appreciation of the recent interview with Michael Williams, specifically his highlighting of Season Two for contextualizing the local drug trade within an international market via the shipping industry, control of the docks, the connections of The Greek and such. So, I do not claim The Wire is entirely without the outside-in perspective for which I advocated. I simply meant to emphasize this perspective as necessary for a more substantial realism, which I held up in contradistinction to heroism.

As to how to define the latter, you are correct that I recognize the need for role models and I acknowledged this in other terms before insofar as I spoke of "leaders." Hey, I also touched on one-of-a-kind excellence that can not be followed or copied. Obviously, there are exceptional individuals that provide us regular folks with inspiration on an almost abstract level, as categorical examples, as embodiments of our principles. I am fine with this as long as this conceptualization does not take on mythic proportions.

You seem to think that the four definitions you found in the dictionary are clearly demarcated and cannot bleed into each other. I counter that it is precisely their potential for definitional bleeding that can be and often is tapped ideologically. I am confident that you would concede this point as obvious in the case of fascist idolatry; when dictators are transformed from being high achievers to admire into demigods to worship. Liberal democracy may seem impervious to this sort of thing but I do not see it that way; a position that would require a great deal of argumentation, so suffice to just assert it here by way of suggesting that liberal democracy is not impervious to erosion into fascism. And this is just a narrowly political treatment of the issue. The deepest mythological proportions of heroic individualism in capitalism have to do with the acquisition of property, the accumulation of wealth, corporate command and so on. In short, the "self-made man" with nary a class connection in all the world.

Turning to the type of individuals you personally regard as heroes, well shucks man, I can dig it. But I hope you will not be offended when I propose that such artistic bohemians are the favorite fruit of petit-bourgeois cultural critics in the intelligentsia. This is not to disparage you or your role models, (or me or mine), yet it is to see that such human exemplars are already at least one step removed from political and economic struggles down on the ground. And we appear to agree that these involve much more than "heroic" acts by special individuals, mass mobilization is essential.

As for your discussion of the positive meaning of surviving the system, now it is my turn to cry semantics. I do not find it requisite to grab a dictionary, though, because with all due respect, you run fast and loose from "surviving" to "resisting" and "questioning." Had your explication of this topic continued, "surviving" would have become synonymous with "protesting," "revolutionizing," "changing the world."

Regarding Miles: This joke used to work better before he died. So Cannonball Adderly passes away and goes to heaven. Saint Peter shows him around and it's, well, heaven. Cannonball is overjoyed to hear Bird and Prez and Brownie and so many others blowing the best sounds imaginable. Cannonball is so exciting, he grabs his case and takes out his horn. But before he can get the reed in his chops, he hears some sad shit coming from another cloud in the distance, real weak-ass sputtering. "That's some sad shit," Cannonball says to Saint Peter, "who is that weak-ass excuse for a player?" "Oh, don't bother about him," his host replies, "That's God, thinks he's Miles Davis."

Is it too late for me to mention that I absolutely love Bunny Colvin? Dude's sort of a pragmatic socialist. (I know, I know, mosta y'll think that's a contradiction in terms.)

Then - BenPosted by Ben Livant on 2008-02-22 07:36:00

Nomi had better stop watching the show now, because here's what's in store:

Ben: "Please explain to me how is the death of Omar is 'a tinge of exploitation from Simon?'"

Oh . . . you know, as Omar's decline and death were written, it was credible. I cannot really say that the way his death was played out was exploitive. But I can't help feeling like the decision to go in that direction was a little bit of "screw you" to the audience, a little bit of a here's what you get for falling in love with this man.

Maybe I'm splitting hairs here with the distinction, I don't know. But, to me, Omar, as he had been established throughout the previous four seasons, at the moment of discovering Butchie's murder, could have just as credibly gone in another direction; he could have chosen not to respond. I believe it could have been written that way without destroying the integrity of the character. Given everything we know about Omar, both roads are legitimate.

Simon's choice to go the way he went with not merely a beloved character, but one of THE most compelling entities to ever grace the small screen, THE person that none of us could get enough of, THE person that had to be carefully doled out so as not to allow for the possibility that we'd God forbid take him for granted, AND, on top of all that, THE person, really the only person in the entire story, who embodied everything we desire in an anti-hero--well, yeah, offing that man leaves me feeling a little bit taken. I cannot help taking it personally.

I better get to work on exorcising all feeling I have for Bubbles, Cutty, Michael, Dukie ... who else that's not already dead? No, I don't think they're all going down. But this whole season I have been more aware than usual of attempting (unsuccessfully) to detach myself from the characters that I care about. It pisses me off. It keeps me from having that total experience that most of us seek from a story. I've been forced to rewatch Deadwood just to remember what that feels like! Horrors.Posted by Nomi Lubin on 2008-02-22 06:53:00

OK, I lied. Just one more thing: a link.

NYMag's Culture Vulture blog urges David Simon to make a Wire movie. However, Gawker says Simon should quit now, and that Season Five flat-out sucks.

Last provocation before turning in for the night: Martin Luther King, Malcolm X and Mahatma Gandhi all did, in fact, crusade to change their world. According to Merriam-Webster definitions c. and d., above, are they or are they not heroes?

I ask this because I think we differ her mainly on semantics. Certain people are passionate, inspiring, innovate, noble or otherwise worth admiring or learning from. Whether we call them heroes or not, they do make a difference, sometimes a profound difference. To circle back around to Nomi's point, there are times when "The Wire" appears to believe that nothing anybody does makes a damn bit of difference on anything but a street-corner or household level.

Social change is a collective phenomenon--but it can't get started, much less continue, without leaders or exemplars--driven, hopeful individuals!--and those sorts of people could not exist if they did not believe, on some level, that they can survive and thrive no matter how seemingly dire their circumstances, that the future isn't fixed. All change, whether individual or national, originates in the examples of individuals who in some way break from the pack.

Is hope nourishment for the soul, or just another narcotic?Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2008-02-22 06:17:00

To elaborate on one of my points above: No, merely surviving doesn't constitute heroism. Surviving with one's values more or less intact, without betraying the essence of what one stands for, does constitute a limited sort of heroism, even if one isn't putting out albums on par with "Bitches Brew" or "Circle in the Round." One can be heroic (that is, brave, admirable, worth emulating) whether one crusades for change or simply does his own thing, and in so doing, inspires others to be true to themselves.

Clay Davis and Cutty are both survivors. Davis isn't admirable, but Cutty is.Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2008-02-22 06:02:00

I would just say, these recent posts on the idea of "hero" and what you say Matt seems to prove Ben's point further. That is, that an aspect of the show is to go counter to the "lone American, mythological hero", or whatever the term was, and not offer the rogue individual correcting or avenging the system that Nomi offered. This seems enhanced by a) the example of Miles Davis (not my man per se, I'm a King Oliver, Louis Armstrong, late era Coltrane, and to the highest degree Albert Ayler man myself) and b) your recent post on hero's (which I will admit to only reading quickly), but these seem to offer exactly what Ben says vis a vis the idea of hero as either "lone rogue" (which I disagree with in today's climate as well) or someone who, much like the artists you offer, perhaps live with dignity and possess a way of viewing the world one finds respectable, or valid, or insightful, or illuminating, or something that can teach us a thing or two, etc. etc. That is Robert Bresson may be a hero of mine but he isn't out to fix the world for all but to offer a view of the world that puts forth a dignity and perspective that I admire and most importantly can learn from. It's late and drunken here, hope this makes sense.Posted by Tom Harris on 2008-02-22 05:51:00

Hey, Ben--

I think before we go further we should clarify our terms. You seem to define hero as meaning exclusively a mythological protagonist figure, someone whose being or achievements dwarf those of mere mortals, or a lone individual who rights the wrongs of his/her universe either singlehandedly or as a leader of a like-minded group. (If I'm assuming too much, please correct me.)

Going off the Merriam-Webster definition of the word, there are many possible definitions of the word "hero."

1 a: a mythological or legendary figure often of divine descent endowed with great strength or ability , b: an illustrious warrior c: a man admired for his achievements and noble qualities d: one that shows great courage.

I don't believe in 1.a, and I doubt anyone else here does either. 1.b is slightly more palatable if you believe that a person skilled at doing violence in service of his society is by definition a great person, an example for others, etc. I don't believe this, partly because of certain lingering post-hippie sentiments that I continue to entertain, partly because I tend to hold in highest esteem those who go their own way rather than serving an established order. I'm totally down with 1.c and 1.d, though, and I don't think they sound too far removed from your description of what you do believe in: "...ordinary people occasionally doing extraordinary things."

You seem to qualify this when you add, "And what is more, I believe that when extraordinary things are done by individuals, even on a relatively regular basis by outstanding geniuses, such individuals always have peers and these peers are in a milieu and this milieu is situated in larger social networks which in turn draw on the structures of the society as a whole which are themselves the product of historical development." However, even when one acknowledges that an inspirational or admirable figure could not exist without input from his/her society, some people are more inspirational, more brave, more innovative, hell, more heroic than others. It almost sounds as if you're saying that it's pointless to admire or be inspired by anyone because they're all products of society anyway; that seems to imply either that the society which birthed those individuals is in some fundamental way admirable (a sentiment which I doubt you'd endorse) or that one could or should live one's life without looking up to or being inspired by or wishing to rise to the level of any other person, living or dead (surely you don't mean this, either--a world without positive human examples is a world that's not worth getting out of bed in the morning to face).

To me, a hero is a person whose beliefs, values and accomplishments amount to a model worth studying or emulating, usually because they exemplify qualities I personally prize, and very rarely because they exemplify values that mainstream American society holds dear and propagandizes through film and television--chief among these, the lone hero rooting out malfeasance by a few bad apples and restoring a compromised institution to its Edenic state (the narrative of probably 95 percent of Hollywood movies and TV series--to give just one example, I've lost count of all the spy thrillers and action films I've seen where it isn't the military-industrial-intelligence complex itself that's the problem, but some rogue element within it. Give me a fucking break).

Regarding Miles: my admiration of Miles Davis has nothing to do with his personality, which by all accounts was mostly disagreeable, often foul, and everything to do with his artistic innovations, his technical excellence and his bullheaded refusal to do what the record industry and white society at large kept implying or demanding he do. From early in his adulthood through the end of his life, he remained his own man. That's an astounding accomplishment apart from the fame he achieved as a recording artist.

I have to disagree also that surviving the system does not in and of itself constitute a kind of heroism. I think it does. So very many people simply give up under various institutional pressures--school, work, social or religious or class conditioning, jingoism--if in fact they ever gave a thought to resisting or even questioning them in the first place. Within the context of "The Wire," the achievements of Cutty, Lester Freamon, Bunny Colvin and even, in a twisted way, Omar (who lived off the grid, so to speak), all constitute this type of survival, this type of heroism.

I agree that this isn't enough--that the system must be changed, and it cannot be changed unless a lot of people get together, fight to correct fundamental inequities in our society and end the bribery/patronage/corruption that makes change, or even mild reform, all but impossible, and keep fighting until they win or go out in a blaze of glory.

The stamina, perhaps obsessiveness required to do this tends to scatter impassioned groups, which are comprised of individuals, many of whom will flag, capitulate or run after one or two setbacks, or after convincing themselves that the system, whatever that means, is just too strong, and that they can't win. A hero is someone who inspires that sort of person to continue when they might otherwise give up--a person who inspires passion not simply through physical courage or rousing rhetoric, but by providing a morally consistent, focused, patient, righteous example of what an individual can achieve, even when plagued by demons, undermined by naysayers or battled from without by defenders of the status quo.

A side note: I disagree that the show is too localized in its focus. Season Two, the docks (which showed how Baltimore's street drug biz was part of a global economy) and Seasons Four and Five (which repeatedly acknowledged forces at the state and national level) both suggest that what happens in Simon's Baltimore is a microcosm of what happens throughout the United States and perhaps, in a general way, the entire world. (Corruption is a parasite that can survive attached to any political host.)Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2008-02-22 05:49:00

Nomi: I agree with you. Now will you continue to argue with me? Matt: I have 50 Miles Davis albums myself, on vinyl no less. But I still do not believe in heroes. The Hero is literally a mythical entity, a mediation between humans and gods, ideologically fabricated by aristocrats to legitimate their class rule in antiquity. The fact that this idealist construction continues to occupy a central place in our culture today, with a hegemonic hold on the imagination, indicates that we continue to live in class-divided society dominated by supposed archetypes that are actually obstacles to imagining an alternative society. So, no, I do not believe in heroes.

I believe in ordinary people occasionally doing extraordinary things. And what is more, I believe that when extraordinary things are done by individuals, even on a relatively regular basis by outstanding geniuses, such individuals always have peers and these peers are in a milieu and this milieu is situated in larger social networks which in turn draw on the structures of the society as a whole which are themselves the product of historical development. This means that leadership and even sui generis excellence should not be conflated with heroism, and admiration of human achievement should not be reduced to the cult of the personality.

And just to end this highjack by returning to the thread, I do think that The Wire is saying that it is futile for an individual to try and buck the system, fight city hall and all that. I believe the show is saying that the most an individual can do is survive the system; and Matt, I reject the notion that mere survival is an affirmation of anything. Individuals merely surviving the system, however prosperously, are displayed by The Wire explicitly and consistently as far as I can see.

Yet, I feel that the implicit message - the unspoken positive template - is that folks who want to change the system better get together, better get organized politically, better take a united hold of the existing institutions and rework them on behalf of the greatest good for the greatest number, to slightly misapply Benthem's classical liberal slogan. At the very least, The Wire is artful propaganda for the would-be left-wing of the Democratic Party. The show is hardly politically radical, but a strong reformist sensibility resonates throughout and whatever is realistic in the program serves this.

Nomi, if I hear you correctly, you feel that The Wire is to some extent gratuitously grim, not in some trashy manner, but at the end of the existential day. You will be pleased to argue with me because I agree with you. But I agree with you not because I believe Mr. Deeds can go to Washington and save the soul of the nation, just like the angel saved the soul of "Mr. Deeds" in It's A Wonderful Life. I agree with you because The Wire is not realistic enough. This is to say that for a genuinely radical critique of what's wrong with Baltimore, you have to get out of town; you have to look at Baltimore from the outside-in and not just the inside-out; you have to grasp that the setting of The Wire is but a microcosm of the global system as a whole.

But enough ramifications. Please explain to me how is the death of Omar is "a tinge of exploitation from Simon?"

Then - BenPosted by Ben Livant on 2008-02-22 04:57:00

Check out this brand new Newsweek interview with David Simon, addressing S5.

Ralph Nader was vilified for his "spoiler" role in the 2000 election, but I'd consider him a hero who triumphed on a number of issues throughout his life, against considerable, institutionalized opposition.

Most of my personal heroes are artists, though, and here, too, whether they triumphed depends on your definition of the word. Miles Davis was never as popular as a lot of mediocre, fleeting rock acts, but he had a long, profoundly influential career during which he reinvented himself countless times, battling against artistic and racial preconceptions, the marginalized status of jazz, etc.

Is that a hijack?Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2008-02-22 01:00:00

Dan: I'm going to duck that not because I don't have my own personal answers, but I'm afraid it would hijack the thread. Of course it's legitimate to argue about whether heroes exist, and if so what are they and who are they. But I don't want to do that here. Plus, I really only like to argue with people who agree with me . . .Posted by Nomi Lubin on 2008-02-22 00:55:00

Nomi sed: Well, yes, I do believe that heroes exist, and that sometimes they triumph.

Me: Okay then, can you cite examples in contemporary society?

Curiously yours,Posted by Dan Jardine on 2008-02-21 23:39:00

Andrew, excellent recap.

However, something a little off-topic:

How was the Foo Figthers show? I am going to see them here in LA in a couple weeks. I saw them with the Police and they rocked.Posted by SoCal on 2008-02-21 21:00:00

Matt: "She's saying that by foregrounding the 'hopeless finality' of institutional corruption, mediocrity and ass-covering, the show risks having its message interpreted as, 'What's the point of bucking the system when it's going to trample you anyway?'"

Yes.

I don't see The Wire as "cynical slumming, showing only the worst of people in only the worst circumstances." (Ben) That would be too easy! Then I could stop watching. (Sopranos . . .)

When I say I "hate" The Wire it's because it breaks my heart. And, yes, I do feel a tinge of exploitation from Simon, stemming more from his own anger and need to "tell it like it is," than a calculated kind of "gotcha," but quietly brutal nonetheless. It's not about killing off a beloved character, or when, classically, that should or should not be done. It's about what it means when some of these people are offed.

I agree (with Matt) that "Simon's splitting the difference . . . somewhere between 'Why bother?' and 'You can do it, kiddo!' lies reality." This is part of what makes The Wire a remarkable creation. It has a kind of complexity and delicacy--and humanity--that is extraordinarily rare in film. It's been absolutely thrilling to watch.

For me, though, the spit just comes down too unevenly. In the end, I don't accept it. Ben criticized me for implying that there's some kind of reality to "larger-than-life" characters. Well, yes, I do believe that heroes exist, and that sometimes they triumph.Posted by Nomi Lubin on 2008-02-21 19:40:00

Seems like "the only people at your funeral" speech has to foreshadow McNulty's death sometime in the next 2 episodes.Posted by barbara74 on 2008-02-21 18:37:00

Remember what Beadie said to McNulty, at your funeral the only people that will be there is your family. The only friends are the people who were close enough to be family. McNulty may have respected Omar, but they weren't family and neither one would go to each other's funeral. The only person at Omar's funeral is his grandma.Posted by author on 2008-02-21 16:02:00

"I also suspect that Simon might throw us a scapegoat in which Rawls and Daniels will pin all the murders, but I think you are overcomplicating it."

Nah, I was just kidding, filipe. I actually think Simon's gonna end it with a huge Cop Rock rendition of "That's Entertainment" with Rawls, Daniels, Landsman, Phelan, and Pearlman high-kicking it on the steps of City Hall as Jimmy and Lester breakdance in the foreground. Watch for Marlo's awesome saxophone solo.

After all, Simon's gotta do something to top the rug-pull ending of The Sopranos, and having The Wire self-consciously deconstruct its own artifice by suddenly wrenching it into a totally unrelated genre would be so po-mo, dude. It'll get put on the syllabus of every Comp Lit course in the country!Posted by hng on 2008-02-21 13:18:00

Ben: "I believe it is incorrect and unfair to view The Wire as cynical slumming, showing only the worst of people in only the worst circumstances."

I don't think that's what Nomi meant, and I absolutely know that she doesn't view the show that way--she's written a lot in these threads about the many moral facets of the major characters. I think--and I'm sure she'll correct me if I'm wrong--that she's saying that by foregrounding the "hopeless finality" of institutional corruption, mediocrity and ass-covering, the show risks having its message interpreted as, "What's the point of bucking the system when it's going to trample you anyway?"

Also to Ben, on a barely-related note: When you use the phrase "the bogus ideology of rugged American individualism", it makes it sound as though you think Simon's series is mainly a a critique of America's delusions--specifically the notion that one person can make a difference, you CAN fight city hall, etc.

It is that--but it's also about a lot more than that. It's about the survival instinct as evidenced by individuals and institutions alike--an aspect of human nature that's the same in almost every culture, every political system throughout history.

As I think I said in another one of these recaps--maybe back during Season Four--if you could go back in time and show a season of "The Wire" to a Soviet bureaucrat circa 1950, he'd laugh his ass off in recognition.

I suspect Simon's splitting the difference, as the show often tends to do. Somewhere between "Why bother?" and "You can do it, kiddo!" lies reality.

I agree with you that the series shows characters doing good in small ways here and there, and I'm glad you pointed that out, because in all the obsessing over Marlo, the fact that the series is about more than drug dealing and gunplay tends to get obscured.Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2008-02-21 08:47:00

I also suspect that Simon might throw us a scapegoat in which Rawls and Daniels will pin all the murders, but I think you are overcomplicating it. If that's the direction, the scapegoat will probably very convenient be already dead, a known criminal (probably a smaller player in the gangster plot like Cheese) who they can easily add a few extra murders too and who would not be around denying he did the murders and tring to come with alibis and proof that he wasn't guilty.Posted by Filipe on 2008-02-21 07:36:00

Anybody here been checking in on Slate's TV Club?

Gawd! It's been awful. No insight whatsoever to what has been happening this season.

anyway, a commenter over there made one hell of a hilarious blog entry in which he breaks down Jeffrey Goldberg's blunders from each week of the TV club.

You'll only want to check this out if you've been reading Slate, and be warned that the enries are very long, but damn it, they are so worth the time, IMHO.

http://thefirstannualkrogblog.blogspot.com/Posted by Anonymous on 2008-02-21 06:29:00

Nomi: If you are going to refer to yourself as a "fool sentimentalist," however facetiously, you pretty much leave my part in this conversation on the cutting room floor. I'm just funnin' ya, of course, but seriously, seems to me "larger-than-life" and "reality" is a contradiction in terms. Let us not get bogged down on semantics, though. Nor will I criticize your subjectivist and pluralist assertion about there being "many, many realities" from the point of view of common sense materialist ontology. I get your point as it pertains to conceptual representation, especially in art. What this leaves for me to wonder about, then, is your category of "audience cruelty." I'm not sure what you mean by this but I suppose you mean that it is somehow not right for an author to kill off a protagonist we have come to love. More precisely, this is only allowed in tragedy but even in this dramatic genre it is allowed only at the very end, the final act. I take it you find it cruel to the audience to have a beloved principal character die many scenes prior to the curtain. About this I can only say, as I did previously, you'll have to sort that out on your own time; meantime, The Wire is having none of it. You say that Simon focuses on "hopeless finalities." Admittedly, there is no shortage of harsh antagonism and fatal violence depicted in the program. But I believe it is incorrect and unfair to view The Wire as cynical slumming, showing only the worst of people in only the worst circumstances. Quite the contrary, I see a lot of positive social consciousness in The Wire, people helping other people, or at least trying to. The thing is, they can't do it alone. This brings me back to bogus ideology about rugged American individualism and the objective fact of institutionalized power, which The Wire refuses to sweep under a Disney carpet.

Then - BenPosted by Ben Livant on 2008-02-21 06:16:00

Just to correct an error: Poot had numerous S4 appearances since his time in Jessup.Posted by Anonymous on 2008-02-21 05:40:00

I did some research not to long ago on Hank Williams and when he died the examiner listed his age as 37 when he was only 29. A lot of newspapers ran his age as 37 as well. If you look at pictures of Hank the last few months of his life he looks about as beat and tired as Omar did in the last few episodes. Not sure how this ties into the plot of the show or anything but I thought I'd share in light of your analysis of the DOB tag and how Omar might live on in legend.Posted by Tim on 2008-02-21 05:06:00

"I can't see McNulty and Freamon letting some poor schnook rot so they can evade punishment."

And that's EXACTLY why Simon's gonna do it, you see. Because it's what you least expect. And to punish you for liking these characters.

There's a hole in the world like a great black pit and it's filled with people who are filled with shit and the vermin of the world inhabit it and its morals aren't worth what a pig could spit and it goes by the name of...Baltimore.Posted by hng on 2008-02-21 04:52:00

I can't see McNulty and Freamon letting some poor schnook rot so they can evade punishment. They've gone their whole lives taking chances and living with the consequences.

That said, it's unrealistic to expect that Simon will be able to completely resolve all these plotlines, McNulty's included, in two episodes. It seems more likely that he'll end just as the worm has started to turn for a lot of people. If he does otherwise the last two eps will seem even more compacted (rushed) than the rest of Season Five.Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2008-02-21 03:45:00

I'd agree with that, if "the bigger the lie, the more they believe," there's no way everything's falling down. My guess is McNulty and Lester either wind up in an equivalent of the pawn shop unit, or they get bumped out of the force the same way Herc did last season, not falling for what they actually did, but for some other less significant charge.Posted by Patrick on 2008-02-21 03:44:00

It seems pretty clear that a number of higher-ups in the Bawmer PD are already onto McNutty and his sick scheme. Landsman certainly is, and I suspect Rawls is, too.

The real nightmare scenario would be if the police and prosecutors railroaded some poor slob for the bogus killings. In that case you'd expect Freamon or McNulty to fess up, but Simon's grown so cynical maybe he'd have them keep mum while some innocent guy rots on death row for Jimmy's little scheme.

There. How's THAT for a downer ending to the series?Posted by hng on 2008-02-21 03:18:00

One thing I forgot to include in the recap was my official prediction on McNulty's fate: After giving it a *lot* of thought, I came to the conclusion that he'll get exposed within the police department and to Carcetti...but that some incredible weird twist of bureaucratic necessity results in a cover-up that gets the whole scam buried and forever kept from the public. The Sun will publish a highly sanitized "offical" version of events...which just reiterates the point of this week's opening quote about the nature of truth.Posted by Andrew Johnston on 2008-02-21 03:00:00

In fact, the act that screws over Tim Robbins in Mystic River is also his attack on a pedophile.

MZS: Marlo's got his own problems with Chris, though. The coroner tied his DNA to the murder victim that Bunk fast-tracked this week, right?

I had a bit of an epiphany reading this comment. If Chris were to go down that way, it'd be the second Dennis Lehane authored film where a victim of molestation falls later in life precisely due to his unfortunate childhood experiences, and dies at the hand of a close friend.Posted by Simon Hsu on 2008-02-20 23:39:00

Great comments from everyone.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned are the parallels this season between McNulty and Omar. I thought of this connection last week when I realized that both were way over their heads in problems they both created. But the connection runs a bit deeper. Both left their idyllic lives to take up a crusade they had previously walked away from, and both did so because of the death of someone else. Both are essentially crippled by actions of the larger institution--McNulty by the cut backs and Omar by the deaths of all his associates. Both have turned into rogue versions of their former selves, and both have become repulsive (or at least less attractive) to us viewers. I think McNulty's quote at the end of the conversation with Beadie applies just as aptly to Omar: he started out as the hero, at least in the eyes of the viewers, and now we don't really know what he is. I have a hard time believing McNulty will not in some way also be destroyed by what he has created.

As for the scene with Lester and Clay, I figured Freamon was using it as some insurance when the homeless killer fiasco comes to light. You could tell he saw the writing on the wall after Kima left and he asked McNulty just how many people knew. My guess is that Lester is either trying to find a way to stop the sinking ship or possibly get off the ship all together. I could be way off, but I am highly intrigued about where this will go.

I will also be very interested to see how the homeless killer hoax plays out, as many careers seem to hinge on it. What role will the media play? If it comes to light that this was fake, who is accountable? Gus? Scott? Are one or both fired? Or, is the media somehow a champion for exposing the hoax? Overall, I think the biggest loser of the would be Carcetti, whose gubernatorial hopes would be devastated. What would the fallout be on the BPD. Are Rawls and/or Daniel then fired?

On a separate note, one thing I was disappointed about this week was the amount of spoilers contained in the preview for the last two episodes, especially with regards to Michael. Less is more with coming attractions, I feel.Posted by James on 2008-02-20 19:47:00

One last pre-recap thought...

On "The Wire," the most defiant individuals, the ones who can't exist comfortably within any established order, tend to get killed, discredited or disgraced as a matter of course. Stringer Bell, Bunny Colvin and Omar all gave the established order the finger, did their own thing and were symbolically or actually annihilated.

I think it's a bit harsh to lump Bunny together with String and Omar here. Yes, Hamsterdam fell prey to bureaucracy, and yes, Bunny was hung out to dry. But instead of accepting disgrace and discreditation and going into retirement with his tail between his legs, he chose to keep fighting to save his city--first by going into the schools, and then by choosing to foster Namond. I'd argue that no Wire character--except perhaps McNulty--is less willing to accept defeat. And while religion has played a surprisingly small role in the series over the course of its run, I'd argue that Bunny is also the most Christian character in terms of his selflesness and willingness to make personal sacrifices for the sake of his community as well as the world at large. What he's doing with Namond totally embodies the Talmudic maxim about how "whoever saves one life saves the world entire". I have no clue if Bunny and Namond will show up in the final two episodes--I sure hope they do--but if they appear, I'm fully confident that this point will get reinforced.Posted by Andrew Johnston on 2008-02-20 15:58:00

also: "I do not believe Marlo has the social skills or general feel for the Baltimore culture that Bell and Joe did."

I think you're absolutely right about this. The analogous situation in "Deadwood" is, Marlo is more like George Hearst, the conquerer who just rolls over everybody, while Stringer, Avon and Prop Joe are more like Swearengen, Tolliver or Wu--citizens who live in, and have meaningful relationships within, the same community they profit from.Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2008-02-20 14:49:00

straight outta silver spring: "Do you think that Chris/Marlo/Snoop will want to take out Mike's mother because word gets out, or it is just assumed, that she was the one that put Chris and Snoop's name in Bunk's ear. And if so, even though Mike seems to hate his mother, would it be the last straw for Michael and his allegiance to the Stanfield organization?"

That's just about the most chilling potential development I've heard yet. Seems like it'd be the break point for a lot of people's allegiance to/fear of Marlo and his people. But I wouldn't put it past Marlo.

Marlo's got his own problems with Chris, though. The coroner tied his DNA to the murder victim that Bunk fast-tracked this week, right?Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2008-02-20 14:44:00

Patrick hit the nail on the head, the "new generation" as many have put it is not more vicious or less honor or code filled. These actions just show the vicious cycle of the corner life, the political scene, the police department, the newspaper, and even on a low scale, the homeless and junkies of the neighborhood. Marlow, Chris, Snoop, Kennard and etc are all young and hungry. Wanting to plot and take over and have done so effectively. The older generation of Bell, Prop Joe and even Omar had grown somewhat comfortable in their illegal lives so much so that Bell was moving forward onto new opportunities which ultimately left him open on the street for betrayal. Joe was also trying to harness Marlow by trying to reform him into a ''civilized'' human being. Obviously harnessing Marlow was impossible because he wasn't looking up to Joe he was looking past him. It shows that youth is hungry and have less to lose in their own minds. The older characters might have slipped slightly in their street edge and have allowed themselves to be cornered. It is the same within sports, the young will eventually take over and the torches are passed on, in the street life the torches are taken and not passed.

Also, I was reading most of the responses on this blog and someone had said Omar was killed in part to his going against his code and he then became careless and left himself open. I don't think that is the case, I think that Omar was living by his code and would die by his code to avenge the death of a friend who in many ways saved his life until his obvious demise. He would not let the money he had or the seclusion he had earned keep him from returning to his neighborhood and right the wrong that had been commited. In the end I believe Omar's death wwill not be in vain and Marlo will be in prison or maybe even dead. I believe Marlow himself is already becoming comfortable in his illegal life. As soon as he found out the Omar was murdered he wanted to go to Atlantic City with Chris.Now this might be Marlow's way to lure Chris into being set up and killed in Atlantic City but I do not believe that is likely. I do not believe Marlo has the social skills or general feel for the Baltimore culture that Bell and Joe did, and because of this I believe his run as king will be much shorter than either Bell or Joe.

Although this is just a show, a great show at that, it does represent real life situations. However, many of these situations are very unlikely and far fetched such as the whole "Hamsterdam" business. That would probably never happen in a real life situation, but for the sake of the show it was entertaining for a while. With that said, people should realize it is impossible to analyze or rationalize the illegal life. I also have seen alot of comments talking about individuals taking on a system or institution and that because of this they will utimately fail in helping change things for the greater good or just for their own satisfaction.I believe this is true to a certain extent, but individuals throughout history such as Malcom X, Martin Luther King Jr., John F Kennedy, Lincoln and others have all been killed in shameless fashions just as the character Omar. Now I am not saying Omar is on the level of these great men obviously, but they did not die in vain and I do not believe Omar will die in vain as I stated earlier. I believe that the rebel that Omar was will live on throughout the spirit of the community, and possibly leak directly into Michael's soul and conscience. But in the end the street life, especially in the "ghetto" is impossible to forecast. When you live to make blood money you will also eventually pay with your own blood so that others can start their own blood money banks. This show is still among the great shows of all time im my humble opinion and also generates comments from all races, ages, and cultures which shows what a masterpiece the entire body of work is.

On a closing note, thank you for all the great comments I have had the pleasure of reading. Very good stuff!Posted by Sapa Inca on 2008-02-20 11:24:00

"I, too, do not understand what Lester wants from Clay Davis."

Sounded to me like he wanted Davis to give him some info. Not sure about what, though.Posted by hng on 2008-02-20 09:22:00

Ben: I guess I'm one of those fool sentimentalists who does believe in the "bogus ideology of rugged American individualism." Serious realism? Realism is still art; the artist is choosing to create a kind of verisimilitude. It's no more real than any other well-told story. There are many, many realities; a larger-than-life avenging angle anti-hero going down like this is only one of them. Simon's choice in focusing on hopeless finalities reveals his particular world view, one which I do not share and one which I feel does have an element of audience cruelty.Posted by Nomi Lubin on 2008-02-20 09:22:00

We haven't heard from Slim Charles in a while. I wonder if he has any plans to avenge Prop Joe?

If Daniels does get pushed out of his position, one way or another, it'll really suck because this season has made it so obvious that Daniels would be an INCREDIBLE Police Chief.

Here's a little bit of fun speculation, do you think that Chris/Marlo/Snoop will want to take out Mike's mother because word gets out, or it is just assumed, that she was the one that put Chris and Snoop's name in Bunk's ear. And if so, even though Mike seems to hate his mother, would it be the last straw for Michael and his allegence to the Stanfield organization?Posted by straight outta silver spring on 2008-02-20 08:19:00

Also--it's clear that if you take on a system or institution in this show, you're definitely doomed. That's because of Simon's view that today's institutions are bigger than people and that individuals are worth less and less--so if a person takes on an institution, he will lose--that's a certainty.

But is not a completely deterministic and fatalistic worldview because if you just try to live your life and do good in your own way (rather than start an unwinnable struggle against an unbeatable system), you might be doomed, but not necessarily. There are some constraints on your agency, but you still have some agency. Characters like Randy, Wallace, and Bubbles's junkie friend Johnny end up screwed. But characters like Cutty and Poot have quit the game and seem to be doing all right. We don't know where Bubbles and Dukie will end up yet, but I think they have the best shot at a happy ending out of any characters.Posted by Algernon on 2008-02-20 06:20:00

Early on in Season Five - in a conversation with me wherein we considered whether or not Omar would kill Marlo - Dan Jardine referred to Omar as an "avenging angel." Whatever world-view we may or may not assign to The Wire, there are no avenging angels in its universe. That we ever even entertained the possibility that Omar would kill Marlo is testament to the dramatic excellence of the show. But the ultimate impossibility of him doing so is testament to the serious realism informing that dramatic excellence. No way Omar was ever gonna take out Marlo. Because contra the myth of rugged American individualism, either inside or outside the law, The Wire consistently acknowledges the organization, syndicate, institution, corporation, call it what you will. And no avenging angel, no go-it-alone redeemer exists to fight the good fight and reform the system. This is only cynical if you bought into the bogus ideology of rugged American individualism in the first place. You can sort that out on your own time; meantime, The Wire is having none of it. Whether or not Season Five ends with a chord of reformist hope, or even a note of redemption, or hell, a sheer sound of eye-for-an-eye justice - it won't be because "one person really can make a difference children." One of the children so in need of being told this is Kenard, right? Yeah right. He done heard that shit plenty nuff times to reckon he be one person to make that diff'rence.

I, too, do not understand what Lester wants from Clay Davis.

As for the M.E. changing the tags on the body bags in the final scene, he noticed that the bags had been mislabeled, so he made the correction. It is meaningless stage business, allowing the scene to be conducted, a device to let us see Omar get zipped into the sack, so we know without a doubt that he is really dead; something needed whenever a loved one dies. No way Omar was ever gonna get Marlow. But Jesus, did he have to die? Probably. Like that? Hey, does it matter? Time to grieve.

Then - BenPosted by Ben Livant on 2008-02-20 06:12:00

There's nothing Omar could have done to prevent his fate. It was ordained as if by the gods.

I don't read that scene that way. I think the point of that scene with the kids (and, as we now know, Kenard) in Season 3 was to show how the romanticized Omar was really just a part of the violent system. Bunk talked to Omar about the effect he was having on the community--feeding the cycle of violence by inspiring children to be like him. Omar doesn't change right away, but when Bunk gets him out of jail in Season 4 he makes the promise of "no more bodies."

This was Omar's ticket out--he had agency. He could have quit the game, like Bubbles or Cutty, and had a happy ending (I'm hoping Bubbles will). He could have mourned Butchie's death in Puerto Rico. Instead, he rejoins the violent system, rampages across the city, and gets capped by the same little kid he was inspiring back in Season 3.Posted by Algernon on 2008-02-20 06:09:00

Thanks for the response, Patrick. I actually completely agree with you on Lester. He has been my favorite character (I don't think he's the best, just my favorite) for a while, but his actions this season need explanation. He's always been a blank slate, which I've liked because of the eccentricities such as the dollhouse miniatures, but that lack of backstory is really hurting the show not that he's acting so bizarrely. I assume some sort of explanation is coming, though.Posted by Ty Keenan on 2008-02-20 03:37:00

One last thought: The way things have been going in Season Four and Five, I suspect the only rebel left standing will be Marlo, a psychopath who, as far as I can tell, not only has no love for the human race, or even those handful of individuals he interacts with regularly, but seems to have no emotions at all save envy and aggrieved resentment.

Templeton's no rebel--he's just a pathological liar who gives the bosses what he knows they want--but I wouldn't be surprised if he ended up sitting in the fabled catbird seat as well.Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2008-02-20 02:10:00

Simon: "The conflict between what's best for the show and what I want as a viewer and optimistic human being is just killing me."

I don't think "The Wire" is a cynical show, like "The Sopranos," but it's got a mile-wide streak of fatalism.

I used to think "The Wire" was an existential show--existential in the sense that "life is not optimally satisfying, but it nonetheless has meaning," and that the central, defining quest in life is individual's struggle to maintain personal autonomy when pressured to change or conform by states, institutions or other embodiments of an opposing belief system.

But the events of Season Four and Five would seem to contradict that. On "The Wire," the most defiant individuals, the ones who can't exist comfortably within any established order, tend to get killed, discredited or disgraced as a matter of course. Stringer Bell, Bunny Colvin and Omar all gave the established order the finger, did their own thing and were symbolically or actually annihilated. McNulty and Freamon seem headed in that direction, and they'll probably take anyone who sympathized with or abetted them down as well.

The foreshadowing of Kenard's deed alluded to above, if true, also confirms a fatalistic, even defeatist streak. There's nothing Omar could have done to prevent his fate. It was ordained as if by the gods.

What's funny and sad is, often the rebel figures are actually representative of an institution's truest, most noble self, its greatest potential. McNulty's ludicrous scheme is ultimately in the service of letting the police do real police work. Gus at the Sun seems like a fifth columnist, encouraging his favorite reporters to do meaningful journalism in a dying, desperate, increasingly profit-driven industry that prizes flash and sensationalism; he's a classicist, the sort of guy who'd inspire generations of students if he taught at a college, and here he seems like the odd man out when he sits at a table with other authority figures. And as has been noted in many other threads here, Omar, for all his capacity for lethal anger, represents a romantic yet rational image of the career criminal--someone who prizes honor and trust and (until this season when he lost his marbles) a determination to inflict violence only on those who had chosen the same sort of life he lived. That's a bullshit notion of a career criminal--guys who live outside the law for a living are expedient. Omar is (was) a "Godfather" character living in a Scorsese universe. But I'll give Simon one overtly romanticized, unreal major character because he has so many spiritual cousins, particularly Stringer, Bunny Colvin and McNulty.

It's almost as if, for all their strivings, the show's rebels and outsider-types are ultimately just cogs in a machine that grinds on anyway, chewing them up and spitting them out as examples of what happens when you don't play along. It's as if the fatalistic design of the universe includes people who think they defy fate.Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2008-02-20 02:08:00

Someome from another forum posted a screencap from season 3. It's one of the kids pretending to be Omar at the crime scene following the shootout. The kid in the picture looks a hell of a lot like Kenard. If that is Kenard, then Simon just might be the best storyteller ever if he foreshadows that far ahead of time. Anyone else have an opinion on this matter?Posted by Andrew on 2008-02-20 00:59:00

I have a feeling Omar's work against Marlo will linger like someone posted. If people no longer respect Marlo, then he's lost a lot of power on the street. The way Omar went down, Marlo not facing him, Kenard, a kid, getting him, might really turn things away from Marlo, and put people's actions on the street out of his control. So, Omar's legend, or ironically in the end, lack of legend, might win out against Marlo.

To also add to Matt's comment about Templeton. Templeton was the name of the rat in Charlotte's Web, who thrived by mooching pig-slop. To save Wilbur and his slop, Templeton the rat also went and found words for Charlotte to write. hmmm.

In-deed.

This season is definately darker, but it's also much funnier than the others. Like a train wreck, hilarious. But this is the answer to the question of why aren't these ills presented on The Wire getting attention? The media is the answer.

Their are good people in this season though, who strive for hope and morality against corruption and hopelesness. Hayes, Alma, Michael, Dukie, Bunk, Kima, Vondas, Sydnor, Carver... Same as previous seasons.

Like most seasons, I had to watch it a couple times to really get it. It took me a while to notice how many times season 4 referenced education and learning, with all the societal subjects, for example, making the whole season be about education, not just in the class room. With every scene, this season is about the media, not just the shots of the newsroom. Omar telling other gangsters and hoppers Marlo's a bitch, yelling out that Marlo isn't right for Baltimore in the middle of the street. Media.

Notice how the show's cameras shoot actors in a different way this season? More showy, more close-up, less gritty, less Baltimore, more modern media-like? Media. This season's got a lot of satire in it.

"I was a consultant for one of those CSI shows."

- FBI agent characterPosted by Sean on 2008-02-19 23:54:00

patrick: "I guess Omar really died in the apartment, and it just took a few episodes for death to catch up to him."

With that in mind, the apartment shootout in retrospect is even more chilling. Omar, in staring at Donnie after he catches one in the head, was essentially being offered a sneak peak into his own near-future.

Dan Jardine: "I think Chris's days are clearly numbered, and I wouldn't be surprised if either Snoop or Michael had to do the deed."

You make a good case for Chris' downfall, an inevitability at this point, but the thought of Marlo ordering the execution of Chris solely due to one incident of weakness is brutal - even by Marlo's standards. Losing Chris would be like losing 1/2 (1/3rd if you count Mike) his muscle, equivalent to cutting off his right hand. What I can see though, is Bunk's warrant tying into Marlo having no choice but to do Chris out of his take-no-chances instinct. Otherwise, doing your own lieutenant and chief enforcer is more stupid than strong.

Why do I feel like with Omar gone, Marlo's organization is now...threatless. Like, MCU doesn't even exist. There are so many things that could go wrong with McNulty/Lester's scheme that lead me to believe that Marlo is going to walk. The conflict between what's best for the show and what I want as a viewer and optimistic human being is just killing me.

*Pardon the numerous typos in my previous post, written circa 2 in the am.*Posted by Simon Hsu on 2008-02-19 23:39:00

OK! I was wondering when the re-up (er, re-cap) was going to be here.

Re: The darkness:I think there are still plenty of people reaching for the light on this show. Look at dukie, and look at Bunk! I would say cutty as well but he has like all of one scene this year.

Also, I wonder why no one has touched on the scene with the FBI "expert". The wire has never had a scene with such awkward comedy. I thought I was watching the office or maybe extras or something like that. The best part though is that it worked. It was great. Between this scene and the "goodnight moon" sequence, it seems like in this final season Simon & co. are taking the chance to use all these uncharacteristic artistic flourishes and pulling them off without any effort. It's a great thing to see.Posted by dronkmunk on 2008-02-19 23:25:00

I'm gonna have the recap up tomorrow, the way things are looking right now (I'm going to the Foo Fighters show here in NYC tonight, or else it'd be up sooner). Lotta great comments here, many touching on issues I'll be addressing.

One thing in advance re. the toe tag--a possible reason for the swap could be the ME not even being sure that Omar is Omar relative to bad info about him floating around in the system. When Omar's death hits the Sun newsroom, Alma describes him to Gus as a "34-year-old male", which sounds about right (for what it's worth, the IMDB gives MKW's birth date as "circa 1966"). However, the body tag very clearly gives Omar's DOB as 8/15/60, which would make him a 47-year-old male, something he very clearly ain't. If it wasn't for the known presence of blood relatives like his grandma on the streets of B-more, I'd almost be inclined to take it as a hint that "our" Omar pulled a Don Draper at some point and borrowed someone elses' identity.Posted by Andrew Johnston on 2008-02-19 22:01:00

Thanks for the link, Matt. As for the issue of punishing us for liking the characters, I think that scene with McNulty and Beattie is fantastic because it gives us our deepest understanding so far of how he feels about what he's done, summed up in line about how he started as a hero and now he's not sure what he is.

My biggest issue on that front is Lester, who's gone just as far off the rails as McNulty, but emotionally, I'm not able to understand what's driving him, and how it's affecting his life. I don't think it's as far out of character as some for him to support what McNulty's doing, but we haven't seen any scenes where he deals with the emotional element of what he's doing, none of the remorse that we got from McNulty in the scene with Beattie. Hell, I have no idea what Lester's home life is like outside the police work, and that makes him feel more like a piece of the plot, and less like a fully realized character.

Omar is the other character who's torn down over the course of the season. That's definitely intentional, and I think it makes for an interesting arc, but I can't help but feel some lost potential in so utterly destroying a character who had a powerful symbolic role to play as the one person not bound by any system. I guess Omar really died in the apartment, and it just took a few episodes for death to catch up to him.

That said, I do feel there was an affection for Lester and McNulty in the previous years that's just gone here. In season one, I was really torn because I liked and identified with the characters on both sides of the law, here the question seems to be who's the worst, is it McNulty and Lester staging murders, Marlo killing everyone he can, Scott making up stories, Carcetti's ego-motivated power seeking or Clay Davis's embezzling? Now, every season has people doing really awful things, but in the previous years, there were always characters trying to reform and change things, here there's this depressing feeling that darkness is inevitable. And maybe it is, but you need people reaching for the light to make the darkness more powerful.Posted by Patrick on 2008-02-19 18:30:00

I thought it was pretty clear what was up with Snoop and Chris: they never told Marlo that Omar was calling him out, and when Marlo finds out, he's going to be very upset. Omar made Marlo look weak, and now that Omar has been killed by a "hopper", Marlo looks even weaker. And the Junebug thing shows us the lengths Marlo is willing to go to prove he's not weak.Posted by Anonymous on 2008-02-19 18:15:00

I thought what was most interesting was Kenard's reaction after he shot Omar. This look of shock- like wow it really was that easy to squeeze the trigger and kill a human being- was the most sickening image/thought/event of the season. I am assuming when he leaves the gun at the scene, it got picked up by other kids in the neighborhood looking for souvenirs off of Omar as Bunk put it. The murder weapon wasn't discussed by Bunk nor the other detectives in the store.Posted by Dave on 2008-02-19 16:57:00

Except for Marlo. And little Marlo (Kenard).

I want to echo the praise for the final scene between McNulty and Beadie. Finally, a scene with Beadie that didn't feel false, where she isn't the whining whinging woman been wronged character, where she gets to give McNulty the kick in the nuts he so clearly deserves. And Ryan finally given a chance to show why she rocks the house in Gone Baby Gone.

Why does Chris look disturbed by Omar's death? It doesn't good for him that an 11 year old hopper was able to do the job that neither he nor Snoop have been working on for months, does it? And isn't it entirely possible that he knows that the same thoughts are swirling around in Marlo's mind? And at the very same time that the guns charges are hanging over his head?

And if he knew that Bunk was about to issue a warrant for his arrest in the murder of Michael's dad, that look would get downright terrified. I think Chris's days are clearly numbered, and I wouldn't be surprised if either Snoop or Michael had to do the deed.Posted by Dan Jardine on 2008-02-19 13:46:00

Chris's reaction to the Omar news reminded me of McNulty's disappointment at not getting to bring in Stringer.

Re: the "desire to punish us for ever liking the characters" bit from the Thoughts on Stuff piece, I defy anyone to watch McNulty come clean to Beattie in this episode and not feel something for the guy. He's an asshole, certainly, but he was so remorseful in that scene (and I think it was real--not the usual McNulty lie) that it's hard to hate him. I don't think it should be an issue of whether we like them or not; the point is that they're still human and relatable. Except for Marlo.Posted by Ty Keenan on 2008-02-19 11:43:00

It's late so I'll have to doubleback on the comments tomorrow. I had to get a few words out or else I'd just be lying awake in bed:

Omar's death got me hard in the gut. That his going was denied glory is so "Wire" and in that sense - and to the eyes of this viewer - so perfect. His death has long been foreshadowed, but being accusomed to seeing major deaths this season occur at an episode's end did throw me off; I was in some sort of mental shock for the next 5-10min. If you notice, when the door-chimes to the store went off, Omar's eyes shift over to the right to address the newcomer. Then he looks back at the cashier. In that instant, what was he thinking? My guess is probably something like "oh, it's just a kid" - if even that. God, what a fucking anti-climactic last thought to have before you go. The camera doesn't even pan over to address Kenard until after Omar's dead. It didn't give a shit either. So perfect. I also really liked Chris' reaction to Omar's death. Marlo's obviously ecstatic (have we ever seen him this happy?), and by all means, so should Chris. But look at his reaction. Even he thinks Omar's end at the hand of an unknown is undeserving.

Quickies:- McNulty's real-time reaction to the serial killer profile is uproarious.- God bless Amy Ryan. Her scene with West at the end was fantastic. With I don't think McNulty can avoid prison at this rate. Shit, I'll even wager that he's gonna turn himself in, with the honesty he showed with Beadie at the end.

Matt, you and Alan Sepinwall are serious troopers for policing comments for spoilers. If I had read any of the deleted comments present, in larger numbers at his blog, it would have significantly deflated Omar's moment, along with a good many others.Posted by Simon Hsu on 2008-02-19 09:45:00

Sample from the Ep. 58 piece linked above:

"Kenard in season four was a character who was so absurd he became, almost by necessity comedic. This kid was about four feet tall, ten years old, and he's running drug operations for Namond. There, he showed how pathetic a drug dealer Namond was, that he can't even boss this kid around. Kenard clearly had a knack for the game that all the older kids in that season lacked. He's more reminiscent of Marlo, someone who only knows the streets, has been there his whole life, and knows how to play the game.

I got a bad feeling when we saw him again, the cat scene coming after "That's Omar?â€ last week did not bode well. But, still, I was not expecting Omar to die so abruptly. That was a totally shocking moment, perhaps inevitable, but at the same time totally out of nowhere. If Omar is as much about the legend as the man, then once the legend dies, and people see him for what he is, a guy limping around on a crutch, the man's death won't be far behind.

One of the issues I have with this season is the seeming desire to punish the audience for ever liking these characters, to tear them the mythology around everyone down and expose the cold, petty people beneath. Omar kills people and is reduced to an inefficient, babbling, hobbling, broken man. It's hard to watch him brought to that place, where what Kenard does is almost a mercy killing."Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2008-02-19 09:04:00

Outstanding analysis of Ep. 58 at the modestly titled blog Thoughts on Stuff.Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2008-02-19 09:02:00

millar: "And one thing that has bothered me is why does Scott make up stories? He goes to Camden Yards and the homeless rally and can't come up with anything worth writing about?"

There's a type of person that's not satisfied with life as it is, and needs it to resemble literature, movies or his own fantasies. Templeton is this sort of person. And it just so happens that he's got bosses who think that way, too. Templeton has a cornball, old school city columnist's mentality. He'll do the grunt work if it's required of him, but he doesn't really like it because he prefers to daydream and write, not to report. Reporting, he thinks, is beneath him, plus he's a bit of a narcissistic sociopath who doesn't really know how to build relationships with people, over the course of years or a few self-contained hours. I think that's why he walks around the tracks reporting that homeless story without really interacting with anyone.

Exaggeration and sentimental distortion--sometimes outright fraud--have always had a central place in journalism. From Ben Hecht (who was a reporter before he was a Hollywood screenwriter, and who was accused of cooking up some of more beloved life-in-the-big-crazy-city columns) through late 20th century city columnists like Pete and Denis Hamill, Mike MacAlary, Bob Greene and Jimmy Breslin, all of whom were at various points accused of inventing details or exaggerating to make reality more like their mawkish or macho fantasies of big city life. (Breslin, in particular, was known for columns featuring recurring characters who were known only by their Damon Runyon-esque nicknames, and whose activities and quotes were therefore uncheckable.)

Also, Templeton is very ambitious and wants to trade up to a bigger paper in a bigger market. Journalists don't become hot properties unless they're either controversial for their opinions or acclaimed as great storytellers (which is very different from being great reporters). Templeton wants to be known as a teller of vivid yarns that tug on your heartstrings, stories that aren't just the sum total of their facts. The media like to pretend that they're all about the facts, but they have to sell papers or increase web traffic. Stories about West Side kids in wheelchairs trying to get tickets to a ball game are more likely to produce that result than, say, a five-part investigative series on the problems plaguing the public school system.

I'm not getting the talk here about dirty cops. We're going to find out in the last two episodes of a five season series that two good cops are crooked? That makes no sense. Plus, on The Wire it's just the opposite: No good deed goes unpunished.Posted by Nomi Lubin on 2008-02-19 08:35:00

It seems an inordinate number of posters on various blogs 'predicted' Omar's unceremonious death at the hands of lil Kenard. Hardly a prediction. There was a clip of that scene circulating on youtube and some wire-related message boards for about a week or two.Posted by Anonymous on 2008-02-19 08:25:00

Sean: I agree with you on Freamon. I think he is trying to bluff Davis into giving up something (maybe he is wired like you suggested). I don't think he is crooked. He and McNulty wouldn't break so many rules if they were informing. I have heard it elsewhere that Bunk is on the take and that makes more sense to me. Bunk is good police, but he is very careful and doesn't take any unnecessary risks that could brink attention. I hope it is not true, but I can see Bunk being an informant. The same is not true for Freamon.

As bad as it was to see, I do feel a sense of relief that Omar got killed. One reason I have not liked season 5 as much as the others is every episode I am waiting for the other shoe to drop with Omar and McNulty. From the beginning of the season it only seemed like a matter of time until Omar got taken out and McNulty gets busted. Hopefully the latter doesn't happen.

The newspaper storyline was better this episode, but it still seems forced. The Iraq vet was too preachy with the "what happens if one of those guys reads this" line. And one thing that has bothered me is why does Scott make up stories? He goes to Camden Yards and the homeless rally and can't come up with anything worth writing about? I have been under the impression that the guys who have been busted for this (Glass at New Republic, and the one at the NYT)completely made up stories and didn't bother doing any reporting. Scott does the reporting but still makes up quotes. I guess he is making up better quotes, but it still seems like a stretch.

Finally, I have always liked the political parts. Everything with Clay Davis is great. It has been interesting watching Carcetti evolve from reformer to cynical politian. This episode really showed how he has deluded himself into thinking that what is good for him (becoming governor) is good for his current constituents. The look on his wife's face when he rationalized giving away half the school money was great.Posted by Millar on 2008-02-19 07:47:00

does anybody care that they mentioned cheese's last name 3 times as "wagstaff"? that is randy's last name. we already knew this, but b/c they were so adament a/b saying it, will this come back in? also, the preview from last week (Took) showed Colvin and Namon. They didn't show up this week. Are they setting us up to bring in all the "kids" from season 4 next week? Not to mention the preview they showed w/ Michael shooting someone in the SUV that showed him to "come early". Snoop and Chris were the only other ones in that scene b/f Kima's triple murder.Posted by byron on 2008-02-19 03:55:00

"This is the end of "The Sopranos" on a smaller scale. The arguments on both sides are compelling. Omar's send-off conveys the idea that corner life is tough and short and you never know where or where death might come. But on the other hand, Omar was the show's most mythic, playing-to-the-balconies recurring character, so sending him off in such a grubby way constitutes a kind of audience cruelty."

Bingo. Omar's death has an eerie parallel to Tony's.(assuming of course you think Tony died). Mr.Members Only Guy and Kenard are two faces of the same coin. They represent the inevitability of death in Tony and Omar's world. They are seemingly insignificant characters dismissed by their victims. Both Simon and Chase could not mythologize their characters with a going out in a blaze of glory death (and in Tony's case we dont even get to see it). Omar is seemingly superhuman after jumping 5 floors and surviving. Tony somehow escapes the biggest threat of his life from NY and survives intact while his crew is decimated. In the end though it catches up with them. That's the way it happens most of the time. A quick bullet to the head by someone you don't even know or looked past (Kenard never registers with Omar despite the eye contact, Tony watches Mr. Members Only guy go into the bathroom and then comfortably goes back to his menu).

The difference is Bacala never got to warn Omar that you "never hear it when it happens".

Both deaths are equally tragic and yet equally meaningless.Posted by Anonymous on 2008-02-19 02:45:00

I thought Lester "blackmailing" Clay (Sheeeit) Davis was to incriminate him, that Lester was wired up, and will be again, the next time he sees Clay. If not, than Lester's up to something else. If Freemon turns out to be crooked too, I think this show might give me nightmares.

A small city with a murder rate of 300, doesn't get its violent story told often. Omar is one of the tragic fallen, though he was no saint himself. If the Season's focussed on Sevino all this time, his death would be equally as powerful. As this show comes to a close, with so many great characters killed, Baltimore's murder rate becomes more real.

Now stop killing people off David Simon, I get it. And I can't take this shit any more.Posted by Sean on 2008-02-19 02:29:00

I have to assume he swapped the tags because he knows (by some unseen avenue) of Marlo's bounty on Omar's head. This must be literally true, as I think we have not yet seen the last of Omar's body.Posted by Anonymous on 2008-02-19 01:48:00

Why did the M.E. swap the tags?Posted by kant69 on 2008-02-18 23:35:00

I feel like it's a bit simplistic to say that this new generation is inherently much more brutal than the older one. Is it more a comment on youth vs. age? Joe had reached a point where he could accept his differences with people and solve disputes without violence, same for Stringer. But, who's to say they weren't like Kenard or Marlo in their younger days.

Same for Omar, he hasn't killed for a while, but I'm sure he's killed many, many people along the way. So, yeah, Kenard may be a serial killer, but it's not that far removed from what he's seen.Posted by Patrick on 2008-02-18 20:45:00

I think the fact that Omar didn't make Kenard as a possible threat shows his disconnect from where "the game" is headed. He's old, his values are meaningless to the new generation. I keep thinking of Tommy Lee Jones in No Country for Old Men: terrified of the inevitable violence and misanthropy he no longer has any understanding of or control over. Kenard capping Omar jives with everything else in the season: Marlo taking out Prop Joe, Daniels taking Burrel's office, Templeton's rise at the newspaper as senior staff are laid off, etc. The new order is establishing itself, and it operates by different rules and codes of conduct (for better or worse).Posted by Anonymous on 2008-02-18 20:21:00

Re: Mcnulty's attitude towards dead Omar.

Isn't possible that Mcnulty has some resentment towards Omar, since he killed Stringer right before the MCU had a chance to nab him? I don't Mcnulty and Omar had any contact since season 3.Posted by dronkmunk on 2008-02-18 20:20:00

Matt,

I'm having the same problem with Time Warner in NYC as of 3:00 pm.Posted by Robert on 2008-02-18 19:57:00

I was hoping Omar would stop the kids from messing with that cat as I found that scene very disturbing. I didn't like Omar being in that store but figured he wouldn't go until at least the next episode and I was very unhappy that he died. I dislike Scott Templeton more than I dislike Commissioner Rawls. It makes me laugh when I think about it. Anyways, love the recaps on here. Sad to think of this show leaving us in a couple of weeks.Posted by Anonymous on 2008-02-18 19:36:00

and they effectively make the point, that despite all of his heroics and legendary status on the street, at the end of the day he was just another body. beyond the toe-tag mix up, a similar lack of response to the magnitude of the moment at least on the street and audience level is seen within the police and the Sun. McNutty reacts coldly as if he never knew the guy. Bunk shows some somberness until he reads the piece of paper and realizes Omar had broken his word. Wonderful bit of acting by Wendell Pierce to say so much in merely the change of expression in his face. And lastly, at the Sun, where they bump the report of the murder from their pages.

P.S. I guess you could say that it even affected me that way in that afterwards, I was more concerned about the stray cat that Kenard was about to light on fire, before finding new prey.

They clearly established a serial killer mentality in Kenard, to me setting him up as the next generation Avon, Marlo, Kenard. I know that many of us have figured it would be Michael, but Michael still has a code or an honor similar to Omar. He's just stuck in the middle it. Next week should shake all that out.Posted by Anonymous on 2008-02-18 19:14:00

So, makes we wonder about those prequels... so far, two of the characters they chose for those mini-episodes have died... are Bunk and McNulty next? I doubt that that's the case, but it's interesting to think about what those prequels might have been quietly saying. The Bunk/McNulty relationship is certainly in peril this season. In choosing Prop Joe, Omar, then Bunk/McNulty, were Simon and co. subtly telling us to say goodbye to certain things that until this season might have been considered untouchable?

Omar's death didn't shock me in that they've been playing up his vulnerability and instability since he came back to avenge Butchie. His killing Civino came off as extreme, he was breaking his code, his promise to Bunk. At that moment, I felt retribution coming. Also, not to toot my own horn, but I remember noting the cutaway to Kinnard on the corner after Omar hobbled away. I figured it was for a reason, and here we are.

How great was that opening with McNulty at comstat.

Matt, this is my first time commenting but I've been a reader and fan of the blog for a long time. Props to all involved.Posted by Jimmy Saffron on 2008-02-18 19:11:00

One thing I want to throw into the discussion is the possibility that Freamon passing that information to Davis could implicate him as the court house leak. Is that crazy and not even possible? I'm not sure of the privacy the information he gave him has. In any event, that had me perplexed; was that just his way of telling the guy he got him? I'm trying to figure out what significance that scene could have, and with only two episodes left, I'm having trouble figuring that out.

As for Omar's death, I'm somewhat relieved it went down the way it did. I had accepted its inevitability a couple of episodes back, but knew I wouldn't be able to deal with seeing Marlo, Chris or Snoop get the best of him. As brutal and abrupt as it was, it could have been much worse. Plus, the scene before, like someone else mentioned, just seemed his last. The old Omar almost most certainly would have have ignored some kids about to start a cat on fire (an incident taken from The Corner, for those of you who haven't read the book).

Anyway, let me know what you guys think about the Freamon scene. Am I just out of the ballpark?Posted by The Markitect on 2008-02-18 18:54:00

Funny that so many are referencing The Wild Bunch to signal Omar's fate. When I first saw it three weeks ago (Omar's death scene was leaked online a few weeks ago in case you didn't know), the first thought that entered my mind was the deaths of Jesse James and Bill Hickok (shot in the back of the head by nobodies).

I think Omar's death serves as the perfect counterbalance to everything that has come before regarding his character. To have him killed off in such an unglamorous fashion so soon after he pulled off his most unbelievable feat is kind of brilliant.Posted by Andrew on 2008-02-18 18:14:00

The death of Omar makes sense when you view it in the context of his actions as a character, and this season in particular.

Omar could've retired with his legend intact, oodles of cash, and a loving boyfriend in a tropical abode. But by going back to the streets one last time, he ended up breaking his word to Bunk by killing Savino (if not at least one other guy in the apartment shootout), and abandoning his principled tactics and legendary patience.

Outlaws either realize they're past their prime and retire quietly, or try to stick it out and get slain in the dark, shot in the back of the head by some young buck on a come-up. Like Wild Bill Hickok at the poker table, Omar let his desperation and anger leave him vulnerable, and Kennard got to him when his back was turned

I knew Omar wouldn't get Marlo--he'd already succeeded in getting Stringer Bell, a man who himself ultimately died because he abandoned the rules of the game. Kennard (and Marlo, by extension) represent the new breed of avaricious, money-hungry gangsters who have no code or honor, so it makes sense that Omar, by abandoning his code, fell so low that those with no honor could easily smoke him.

I haven't seen the episode, but I read spoilers--the end apparently has the medical examiner switching the tags on Omar's bag to make sure he has the right name. And that, too, is fitting--at the end, Omar's just another barely-known body bag, a casualty of the game. But for those who knew, Omar's name will be respected forever.Posted by Martin on 2008-02-18 15:53:00

I had been expecting exactly this kind of grubby, anti-climactic send-off for Omar for a very long time (since season three), so it didn't really surprise me when it finally happened. It almost makes up for his ridiculous Spiderman leap two eps back. The FBI guys' profile of Jimmy's bogus serial killer is easily the funniest scene in the whole season so far. I hope the remaining two eps are at least this good.Posted by hng on 2008-02-18 15:51:00

Is Omar's death unflinchingly real (because it's so unglamorous) or is it cliched in its own way (too "Wild Bunch," too anticlimactic?

This is the end of "The Sopranos" on a smaller scale. The arguments on both sides are compelling. Omar's send-off conveys the idea that corner life is tough and short and you never know where or where death might come. But on the other hand, Omar was the show's most mythic, playing-to-the-balconies recurring character, so sending him off in such a grubby way constitutes a kind of audience cruelty.Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2008-02-18 15:32:00

What is Lester doing with Clay Davis?

Is he looking for some sort of safety net, possbily, when/if the shit hits the fan with the homeless case?

I never read anything specific on the internet that said "Kenard kills Omar", but enought people who had somehow gotten their hands on the epiosode prior to the airing left enough hints that I was expecting it to happen. First I thought it was going to happen while Omar was still at the stash house corner. When it didn't happen then I was so relieved and was thinking that maybe all the "Kenard killed Omar" rumors that were implied were false. But then, fairly quickly, they go back to Omar and as soon as that cowbell went off I figured the head shot was coming.

All that being said, after Omar was killed it took me a good 8 to 10 minutes to get focused back on the matter of the show. It's also funny how conflicted I am about Omar's death. Part of me thought that his character "deserved" a better death - but in the end I do realize that that idea is just television world bs and that ultimately the way he went out is very fitting. I just wish I hadn't figured it was coming and who it was coming from.

so much great stuff. I look forward to reading these comments throughout the week.Posted by straight outta silver spring on 2008-02-18 09:36:00

Also, to Hayden Childs, if you're reading this: You almost called the exact circumstances of Omar's death back in Andrew's Episode 54 thread with your "Wild Bunch" prediction. The only thing you didn't guess right was the identity of the perp.

I don't think you won the crystal ball I promised, but I think I should send you a snow globe. Email me your address.Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2008-02-18 09:21:00

Well, go ahead and talk about it if you want. I visited some chat boards to see if anybody else was having problems and incidentally came across pretty much every major event in the episode, so you won't be spoiling anything for me.Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2008-02-18 09:07:00

I got it here in DC at 12:02Posted by Phil on 2008-02-18 08:45:00

Did anyone else on the East Coast have trouble accessing this episode? New episodes are usually up at the stroke of midnight, but Ep. 58 hasn't shown up on my Time-Warner system yet. (Note timestamp.)Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2008-02-18 08:23:00